SR-401-007 (2)~~
~E~ ~. ~. 2004
PCD:AS:JL:BL:f:\planlshare\council\stfrpt\2003\03dev 01 Lantana.doc
Council Meeting: September 14, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Two Ordinances Approving Development Agreement 03-001, General
Plan Amendment 04-001; Certification of Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report 00-002, Adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and Resolution Authorizing Transfer of
Additionat Access Rights from Olympic Boulevard for two Projects Located
at 3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East) and'3131 Exposition Boulevard
(Lantana South), Applicant; Lantana-Hines Development, LLC
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council adopt two ordinances approving
Development Agreements proposed by the applicant, Lantana Hines Development, LLC
(Lantana-Hines) to allow the construction of two studio buildings on noncontiguous
parcels which are under common ownership. More specifically, this report recommends
that the City Council:
1. Certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report;
2. Make CEQA findings necessary to approve the projects, adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program;
3. Introduce for first reading two Ordinances adopting both Development
Agreements, subject to:
• Amendrraents to the public benefits as recommended in this report;
• Adoption of Neighborhood Protection Plan Scenario 7;
4. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Transfer of additional access rights from
Olympic Boulevard; and
5. Take no action on the proposed Circufation Element amendment. ~
1
~~~ ~ ~ 20U~
BACKGROUND
A development agreement is a contract between the City and a developer that
authorizes the type and amount of development that may occur within a specific period
of time. Development agreements are typically used to provide developers with
guaranteed development rights in exchange for clear public benefits. Development
agreements allow greater latitude to advance local planning policies compared to the
standard development approval process. A development agreement must comply with
the General Plan and Specific Plans but can supercede zoning regulations by
establishing its own set of development standards. Also, when approving development
agreements, the City Council has more discretion in imposing conditions and
requirements on the proposed project since the development agreement is a contract
between the City and the applicant and is adopted by ordinance. Consequently, strict
"nexus" requirements, imposed by case law and statutes do not apply. Instead, it is
likely that the law only requires that the public entity be able to articulate a rational
connection between the project's impacts and the condition or fee.
Lantana-Hines is proposing two Development Agreements to allow the construction of
two studio buildings on noncontiguous parcels which are under common ownership.
The Development Agreements also include Tentative Parcel Maps for each site that would
allow each building to have different owners with the land and parking owned by the
airspace association. Once the City Council approves the final parcel map, the existing
buildings on these sites will not be governed by the development agreements.
2
More specifically the projects that would be governed by the Development Agreements
are:
Lantana East, 3030 Olvmpic Boulevard - a new three-story, 64,105 square foot
entertainment production/post-production studio building with a finro-level subterranean
parking garage providing parking for the existing building and 200 spaces for the proposed
building.
Lantana South, 3131 Exposition Boulevard - a new three-story, 130,000 square foot
entertainment production/post-production studio building with a one level subterranean
parking garage providing parking for the existing building and 364 spaces for the proposed
building.
The Planning Commission denied two similar projects on September 11, 2002
(Development Review Permits DR99-010 and DR99-011 and Reduced Parking Permits
RPP99-003 and RPP99-004). The decision of the Commission was appealed to the Gity
Council, which upheld the denial on November 12, 2002. In denying the projects, both
the Commission and City Council focused primarily on the neighborhood traffic impacts
generated by these projects, particularly those related to the Lantana South project.
The Lantana East and Lantana South projects currently before the City Council total
194,000 square feet, which is a 10% reduction in floor area size from the previous
projects. The reduced square footage has been eliminated from the Lantana South
project, which is 15% smaller in size.
3
The Lantana East project site is currently used as a surface parking lot containing 233
spaces for the Lantana Center building. As shown on the Master Site Plan map (Page
BD-2 of Attachment O), the Lantana East site would be the third building of a three
building entertainment production campus: Lantana East, Center and West. The
Lantana Center building was converted to entertainment production from a
manufacturing use in 1989. Lantana West, which received development review and
variance approvals in June 1999, was completed in 2001. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration was certified for the Lantana West project on June 16, 1999.
The Lantana South site was previously used for a public utility maintenance yard
(Verizon), an industrial truck terminal, truck maintenance, as well as a film equipment
storage lot on the eastern portion of the site. Shortly after acquiring the property, the
applicant converted the industrial maintenance building to the current IMAX film
production and film distribution building pursuant to Administrative Approval 99-013,
issued on April 13, 1999. Most of the area that had been used for truck parking and
storage was converted to the current 173 space surface parking lot.
The Lantana South and East projects are separated by the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority's (MTA) Transportation right-of-way (see the Master Site Plan
map contained in Attachment P). Even though these projects are on separate parcels of
land, they are directly related by common ownership/applicant and are in close proximity to
each other. The applications for the two projects have been processed concurrently and it
is anticipated that the projects will be developed within the same general time period.
4
Cansequently, the proposed project for purposes of CEQA analysis consists of the
Lantana East and South projects in combination.
This staff report provides additional background information and recommendations on
(1) the proposed Development Agreements, (2) Potential Neighborhood Traffic
Protection Plan, (3) environmental analysis of the project, and (4) the potential General
Plan Amendment associated with certain Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan
measures.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The two Development Agreements include approval of all aspects of the project's
design, except signs and landscaping irrigation plans, which wifl be subject to
Architectural Review Board approval. The Agreements incorporate mitigation measures
and conditions of approval. The Development Agreements also include tentative parcel
maps that would allow each building to have different owners with the land and parking
owned by the airspace association. Both project sites would replace surface parking lots
with new three-story, contemporary design buildings for entertainment production/post-
production studio uses. While the term of the Development Agreements is 20 years,
these agreements provide Lantana-Hines five years, until December 31, 2009, to
complete the construction of both projects providing Lantana-Hines complies with the
milestones set forth in Section 2.5.5.
Lantana Easf
Lantana East, 3030 Olympic Boulevard, would contain a total of 64,105 square feet of
5
building area (9,616 square feet of office/editing space and 54,489 square feet of
production space). The proposal will add a third building to the eastern portion of the
7.28-acre site along Olympic Boulevard. Parking will be provided in a two level, 378-
space subterranean parking garage in addition to 55 surFace spaces for a total of 433
spaces. Two hundred of the new spaces are designated for the proposed building and
233 spaces are required to replace existing parking for the Lantana Center building. The
Lantana East, West and Center site would provide a total of 845 parking spaces.
The proposed building would be setback 20' from Olympic Boulevard, 24.6' from the
east property line and 94.08' from the property line abutting the MTA right-of-way. A 30'
wide section of the second and third floors projects 4.5' into the front setback, and
balconies project 6' into the front setback. These projections were added to the building
design as a result of discussions with staff, including the City's Urban Designer, in order
to enliven the Olympic Boulevard fa~ade for pedestrian and passing motorist. The
building will have 60' of separation from the Lantana Center building. Roof parapet
screen walls are provided to screen roof mounted mechanical equipment as well as
future equipment associated with entertainment production facilities, such as antennas
for electronic media. If approved, the "Lantana East" Development Agreement would
govern this development.
Lantana South
Lantana South, 3131 Exposition Boulevard, would contain 30,543 square feet of
office/editing space and 122,177 square feet of production space, totaling 152,721
square feet. The proposai will add a second building to the east half of the 4.99-acre
6
site along Exposition Boulevard. Parking will be provided by a single-level, 303-space
subterranean parking garage plus 133 surface spaces for a total of 456 spaces. Three
hundred sixty four of the new spaces are designated for the proposed building and 92
spaces are required to replace existing parking for the IMAX building. This site provides a
total of 536 parking spaces.
The new building will be setback 40' from Exposition Boulevard, 63.6' from the east
property line and 69' from the rear property line. It will have 30' of separation from the
IMAX building. Roof parapet screen walls are provided to screen roof mounted
mechanica! equipment as well as future equipment associated with entertainment
production facilities, such as antennas for electronic media. The building is designed in
an "H" configuration, with a center courtyard that faces the IMAX building to the west
and accessible parking to the east. The basic concept governing the formal
development of the building is similar to that of Lantana East. Here, the basic concept
frame is formed around a courtyard and is interrupted by glass and metal forms. An
exterior stair and steel pergola at the main entry provide an additional level of scalar
development. The open stair at the front incorporates an open wall with a"folded plane"
design theme that is also used in the canopies between the main lobby and the
courtyard and garden area. If approved, the "Lantana South" Development Agreement
would govern this development.
The projects propose to incorporate a number of Green Building standards, including
maximizing natural lighting, natural ventilation from operable windows, permeable
paving and the use of materials that eliminate or minimize the discharge of chemicals or
7
gases into the environment. These features exceed City Green Building requirements,
but do not qualify the buildings for LEED certification.
The proposed Development Agreements include several project enhancements that
would provide substantial public benefit to safeguard and enhance the quality of life in
the neighborhood and address impacts of the projects, including improvements to
Stewart Park, improvements at Edison Elementary School for the City's Playground
Partnership recreation program, new sidewalks on Centinela Avenue and Olympic
Boulevard, and financial contributions to City childcare and to art or cultural programs at
Virginia Avenue Park. The Developer has also agreed to hold annual symposium/job
fairs for at-risk youth and young adults, implement a program to hire local residents for
on-site jobs by the developer or its contractor and provide a meeting room that local
community groups may use. As proposed, the term of the Development Agreements is
20 years. However, development rights would be vested for only five years, and
Lantana-Hines would need to obtain building permits and complete construction of the
project by December 31, 2009. Childcare and Playground Partnership funding would
continue up to five years after the buildings are constructed.
As noted earlier, a major reason for the City's rejection of the previous projects was
traffic impacts. To address these impacts, seven Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan
scenarios are presented with the Development Agreements. Multiple scenarios are
presented to give the City Council a range of options to choose from as well as an
understanding of their effectiveness and their negative effects. For example, while
several scenarios effectively block cut-through traffic, they also restrict residents from
8
entering their own neighborhood. Shifting traffic patterns cause traffic to be more
concentrated on the streets that are not restricted, resulting in new adverse impacts on
those streets. Detailed descriptions of the scenarios and analysis is provided in the
CEQA section of this report and the Final SEIR. An amendment to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan would also be necessary if the City Council adopts one of
the potential Neighborhood Protection Plan scenarios that includes dead-end streets.
The potential need for a General Plan amendment is also discussed later in this report.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The proposed Development Agreements are attached to this report (Lantana East
Attachment D and Lantana South Attachment E). A detailed analysis of the proposed
Development Agreements is provided on Page 4 of the July 14, 2004 Planning
Commission Staff Report, which is contained in Attachment A. Staff and Lantana-Hines
representatives have worked for months to resolve all issues however, there remains
disagreement over the extinct of public benefits that Council will resolve. These issues,
which relate are discussed in detail in this report and addressed in the Planning
Commission recommendations.
Prior to formally filling development agreement applications, the applicant's proposal to
pursue Development Agreements for these projects was reviewed by the Planning
Commission and City Council last summer. The City Council considered comments
from the Planning Commission and discussed the appropriateness of a Development
Agreement for redevelopment of these sites, the project's potential public benefits and
negotiating points that should be addressed. As a result of that discussion, staff was
9
directed to pursue the following issues with regards to negotiating a development
agreement for both Lantana projects:
Investigate incorporating the Verizon property (if feasible).
Not feasible - Acquisition, developmenf and relocation of the existing
maintenance facility to another 9.7-acre site within the area is cosf
prohibitive to the applicant. In addition, the existing Lantana sites would
still eventually be developed with a use that would have similar impacts on
the neighborhood;
2. Promote access to on-site public space.
Lantana South provides an open campus design with an open walkway to
a puiblic garden space;
3. Provide recommendations & update City Council regarding CEQA & timing.
Info Items & notices of public meetings provided updates;
4. Include benefits from prior development application.
Conditions & mitigation measures of prior DR permit are included (Exhibits
D& E). Both buildings incorporafe the same Green Building feafures;
5. Assure maximum reduction of car trips.
Tenants with 25 or more employees would be subject to the City's TMD
Ordinance. A new City/MTA bicycle route that will encourage non-
motorized sife access, is scheduled to be constructed along the MTA right-
of-way this fiscal year;
6. Investigate auto access from Olympic Boulevard.
Analyzed in adopted EIR as not feasible due to substantial constraints
associated with spanning the 100' wide MTA right-of-way without infringing
on the ability to develop the transit corridor, concern that the MTA would
not permit a private crossing and the significant amount of land that wou/d
be needed for bridge or tunnel ramps on each side;
7. Provide shuttle service linking specified destinations.
None proposed; significant on-going cosfs are associated with shuttle
operations.
8. Participate in art programs in public schools.
Developer will contribute $50,000 for City arts programs;
9. Create pedestrian connections.
Each projecf site incorporates studio campus features with pedestrian
connections. Lantana South provides an open public garden space. New
sidewalks on the south side of Olympic Boulevard and west side of
Centinela Avenue will be constructed. Mid-block pedestrian crossing at fhe
MTA R/W is not proposed due to safety concerns associated with the
intended use of the transit corridor;
10. Improve internal pedestrian orientation.
Internal walkways and landscaping improves pedestrian orientation;
10
11. Develop a Neighborhood Protection Plan.
The City Council stated that an effective Neighborhood Traffic Protection
Plan is instrumental in its considerafion of the Development Agreements.
To present a thorough analysis of the plan, seven scenarios were
considered and evaluated in the SEIR. Scenario 1 provides positive
benefits with the least negative impacts. Scenario 7 is more effective, but
has greater negative impacts compared to Scenario 1. The program
selected by the City Council will be implemented by the developer prior to
the completion of Lantana South.
Public Benefits
The proposed Development Agreements obligate the developer of Lantana East and
Lantana South to provide the following public benefits:
o Contribute $400,000 ($80,QQ0 per year) to the City to support early childhood
development. These monies would be used to provide childcare subsidies to
low income families ($136,000 from Lantana East &$264,000 from South);
o Replace and upgrade the public restroom building in Stewart Street Park
which is near the project site. The City would contribute to the costs
associated with constructing the sub-foundation system (by Lantana South);
o Construct playground improvements at nearby Edison Elementary School for
the City's Playground Partnership program. Improvements include a smafl
building of approximately 600 square feet to house restrooms, equipment
storage, the Playground Partnership/CREST staff office and playground
equipment. The facility would support neighborhood access to school
recreational space during non-school hours. This use includes the Childcare
Recreation Enrichment Sports Together (CREST) afterschool program as well
as youth and family access during weekends and holidays (by first project
built);
o Contribute $178,000 ($35,600 per year) to the City to fund some of the
operating costs associated with maintenance, custodial needs and monitoring
of the above Playground Partnership site for up to five years (by first project
built);
o Construct sidewalks on Olympic Boulevard and Centinela Avenue between
Lantana East and Exposition Boulevard. Significant sections of these public
street parkways have no sidewalks. The sidewalks connect the projects and
will be heavily utilized (by first project built);
o Fund the proposed neighborhood traffic protection plan improvements (by
Lantana South); and
11
o Contribute $50,000 to City art or cultural programs at Virginia Avenue Park in
lieu of providing on-site art ($25,000 each).
City policy cites the need for early childhood development and childcare that is
accessible to low income households, including single-parent households. Dedicating
the childcare monies to scholarships for low-income households furthers this policy.
Moreover, given the limited availability of childcare, subsidies place low-income families
on an equal footing with families that are able to pay the full cost of childcare, including
project employees. Staff supports the proposed public benefit package with two
exceptions. First, given the overall size of the project, the early childhood support
funding seems low. Lantana's funding proposal would provide $80,000 per year for five
years. The average annual cost of childcare is $9,250 per child, per year. Accordingly,
the proposal will provide full scholarships for up to 9 children, depending on age and the
type of childcare provided. Staff supports a$925,000 subsidy, this level of funding
would be consistent with the funding level for a project of this size to address the
childcare need generated by the project. This would subsidize 20 children per year,
$185,000 per year for five years (20 children x$9,250 =$185,000 x 5 years =
$925,000).
The proposed Development Agreements do not obligate Lantana East to participate in
either Stewart Park or the Edison Schoo! Playground Partnership site improvements.
Only Lantana South would have this obligation. As proposed, these improvements
would not be provided in the event Lantana South is not constructed even if Lantana
East is developed.
12
The project enhancements at both of these sites were selected because of the sites'
close proximity to the proposed developments, the . direct benefit that these
enhancements will bring to the neighbors most effected by the project, and the projects'
impacts on recreation resources. These projects would add a total of 194,105 square
feet of production studio uses and increase the number of employees at the sites by
about 524 people. Commercial land uses, including production and office uses,
substantially effect the City's park system, placing demands on park resources by using
facilities at lunch, participating in sports leagues and using baseball fields, basketball
courts or other facilities before and after work. Both of these developments would
increase demand on park facilities in the area. Consequently, Lantana East should be
required to participate in the Edison School Playground Partnership site improvements.
Given Lantana East's relative size, it need not be required to also participate in the
Stewart Park improvements.
While childcare and other recommended project enhancements are important benefits
to the community, other benefits should also be evaluated. The tota! costs of all
benefits should be commensurate with the size of the project without making the project
financially infeasible. Although the costs of the additional benefits recommended by the
Planning Commission are modest, the City Council should consider that these and any
additional benefits identified during the public hearing increases the total costs of the
package of benefits and it may be appropriate to adjust funding levels of one or more of
the recommended benefits.
13
As discussed below, the Commission recommends additional amendments to the
proposed Development Agreements. There are rational connections between the
amendments proposed by the Commission and the development projects. While the
Developer supports the Planning Commission's recommendations in principal, they
believe that the overall costs are too high to make the projects feasible.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on July 14 and July 21, 2004.
They considered public testimony from 12 persons, including three representatives of
the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) and Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP)
neighborhood organizations. The Commission supports Neighborhood Traffic
Protection Scenario 7, which provides intersection improvements to restrict left turns
from Exposition Boulevard into the residential neighborhood without compromising
public safety. The Commission also considered a number of alternatives to the public
benefits that are proposed by the developer. In response to a proposal from PNA, and
while considering the total costs of the public benefit package, the Commission
suggested splitting the arts funding to enhance computer lab resources that are being
developed within the youth center at Virginia Avenue Park. These facilities wilt serve at-
risk youth. The Planning Commission also supported other proposals from the PNA
that the applicant agrees to. Copies of the Planning Commission staff reports and
meeting minutes are contained in Attachment A& B. Public correspondence and a
petition are contained in Attachment I.
14
After considering all aspects of the proposal, the Planning Commission adopted the
following recommendation:
• The City Council should certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report;
• The City Council should adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations;
• The City Council should approve both Development Agreements with the
following amendments:
b. The Milestones contained in Section 5.5.5 of the Lantana East Development
Agreement should include the same requirements for recreation
improvements to Stewart Park and Edison Elementary School as required of
Lantana South.
c. The childcare funding should be increased to $925,000 to be used over a
longer term.
d. Both Development Agreements should require dish antennas to be located
behind the building's screen enclosures so they are not visible from
immediately adjacent streets.
e. To the extent that Developer determines that there is conference room
space available in the Project, or another building in the immediate vicinity
of the Project owned or controlled by Developer.
f. Developer has agreed to and shall organize an annual symposium/job fair
designed to increase job opportunities in the entertainment industry for at-
risk youths and young adults in the vicinity of the Project site.
g. Developer has agreed to and shall use good faith effort to hire local (Pico
neighborhood) residents out of a first source program for on-site jobs by the
developer and its contractors;
h. The proposed $50,000 arts fund should be used to fund both City art
programs and an expanded multimedia facility at Virginia Avenue Park;
• The City Council should approve the tentative parcel maps;
• The City Council should adopt Neighborhood Protection Plan Scenario 7,
provided the intersection improvements to restrict left turns from Exposition
Boulevard into the residential neighborhood would not compromise public safety
vehicles; and
• The City Council should not amend the Circulation Element.
15
Proiect Desiq.n
The Development Agreement includes approval of the plans for the Project. These
plans provide details regarding the proposed building orientation, height, massing,
setbacks, stepbacks, open space, access, and parking. In addition, under Article 6 of
the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission and City Council are acting as
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in the review and approval of both buildings. The
Planning Commission's recommendation includes approval of the buildings design,
materials and colors. A detail analysis of the project design and neighborhood
compatibility is provided in the Planning Commission Staff report (starting on Page 9),
contained in Attachment A.
OLYMPIC BOULEVARD DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS
Pursuant to requirements that were in place when the City took control of Olympic
Boulevard from the California Highway Commission in 1966, any property owner that
wants to establish a new or expand an existing private driveway across the park-way
from Olympic Boulevard must purchase such access rights from the City. In this case
Lantana-Hines is increasing the width of both driveways along Olympic Boulevard by
432 square feet. The costs of the additional right-of-way will be determined from an
appraisal prior to issuing building permits for Lantana East. The proceeds would be
deposited in the General Fund. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
2.24.110, rights in real property may be sold without advertising for bids if the City
Council, by resolution adopted by at least five affirmative votes, determines that
advertising for bids would be of no avail and would cause unnecessary expense or
delay or would be in the best interest of the City. Advertising for bids would be of no
16
avail and cause unnecessary expense in this case because the property in question can
only be used to provide vehicle access to the Lantana site. Transfer of these access
rights will not preclude pedestrian5 from using the public sidewalk along Olympic
Boulevard. Attachment J contains a resolution making the necessary findings and
authorizing the City Manager to complete this transfer of access rights.
CEQA ANALYSIS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the original project in 2001.
The EIR was finalized in 2002 and the Santa Monica City Council certified the Final EIR
on November 12, 2002. However, the City Council denied the project, primarily
because of concerns about traffic issues stemming from the Lantana South project.
The Mitigation Measures and Conditions recommended in the 2002 FEIR are
incorporated into both Development Agreements (Exhibits D and E). A copy of the
2002 Certified FEIR is contained in Attachment L.
In response to the City's concerns, the applicant revised the project and submitted this
Development Agreement application requesting approval of a similar, but slightly
smaller project. Because the overall size of the project is being reduced by 10%, traffic
and noise impacts will be reduced by a similar amount. Due to its size and location on
Exposition Boulevard, Lantana South generated a greater portion of the neighborhood
impacts. Since the size of Lantana South is reduced 15%, traffic impacts on the
adjacent neighborhood streets would also be reduced. In addition, street and
intersection improvements that were completed after the project was denied in 2002
also increases traffic capacity on Centinela Avenue between Olympic Boulevard and I-
17
10 Freeway. Whiie these changes reduce the impacts that were determined to be
significant in the 2002 FEIR, they would not be reduced to a less than significant level
and the original mitigation measures apply to the current proposal.
In addition to changing the size of the project, the applicant also proposed a number of
public improvements that were not part of the original project and thus were not
evaluated in the 2002 Final ElR. While the reduced development project would not
have any new or increased significant effects on the environment, the proposed public
improvements could potentially create significant traffic impacts, noise impacts, or other
neighborhood effects. Accordingly, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) was prepared to examine the potential effects of the proposed changes to the
project. The Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR was distributed to affected
agencies, surrounding cities, counties, and interested parties for a 45-day review period
in accordance with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. Copies of the Draft SEIR
were made available on April 4, 2004 for the public review period, which closed on June
7, 2004. A total of seven comment letters were received. These comment letters, as
well as the response to comments, are included in Appendix D of the Final SEIR. The
Final SEIR is included in this report in Attachment K.
The Initial Study determined that all of the proposed changes in the project would have
minimal, or no impacts on most environmental categories, except the Neighborhood
Traffic Protection Plan.
18
The residents located south of Exposition Bouievard currentiy experiences traffic
associated with business located on the north side of Exposition Boulevard and cut-
through traffic from vehicles traveling between Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue,
which would be exacerbated by this project. The seven traffic scenarios that are
analyzed in the Final SEIR were developed with input from residents of the effected
area. Scenarios 2 through 7 block cut-through traffic from entering the neighborhood
from one or more intersections. These restrictions would also prevent residents from
entering their own neighborhood from these intersections.
Due to the low daily traffic volumes on most of the neighborhood streets south of
Exposition Boulevard and the significant impact criteria set by the City, relatively small
increases in traffic volume can create significant impacts for some of the street
segments. As a result, all of the scenarios, except Scenario 1, have significant traffic
impacts since they shift traffic patterns and cause traffic to be more concentrated on the
streets that are not restricted. Staff recommends Scenarios 1 or 7 because they would
provide the greatest benefit with the least negative impacts on the effected residents.
While the turn restrictions proposed in Scenario 7 can be designed to allow adequate
access to emergency vehicles, reservations remain regarding the effectiveness of the
measures from preventing cars from making unpermitted turns. The first six scenarios
are described and analyzed in section 4.1 of the Final SEIR and Scenario 7 is analyzed
in the Response to Comments section, Appendix D of the Final SEIR. Atl scenarios
include curb extensions.
19
Scenario 1- Curb Extensions at All Intersections: 34th/Delaware Limited Access.
This scenario involves curb extensions at every neighborhood intersection. Curb
extensions are designed to improve safety and walkability of the neighborhood by
narrowing intersections and crosswalks, as well as improve the aesthetics of the area
by providing additional landscaping at intersections where possible. It includes no
access restrictions so that it does not redirect traffic from one local street to another.
Scenarios 1 and 2 would also restrict cars from exiting from 34th Street/Delaware
Avenue onto Centinela Avenue, but would allow entering from Centinela Avenue. This
option would allow vehicles to enter from either direction but exit only onto Exposition to
prevent cars from using this isolated street to reach Centinela Avenue from Exposition
Boulevard.
Significant impacts are not anticipated on any of the studied neighborhood street
segments since the effect of the curb extensions would be similar across all streets and
the conversion of 34th Street/Delaware Avenue to one-way flow is not expected to shift
significant amounts of traffic to other local streets.
Scenario 2- Curb Extensions; Neighborhood Access from Exposition and
34th/Delaware Only; 34th/Delaware Limited Access. This scenario involves closure of
access to/from Virginia Avenue at Stewart Street and at Centinela Avenue, and access
to/from Delaware at Stewart Street. 34'h Street/Delaware Avenue would restrict access
to Centinela Avenue as detailed under Scenario 1.
20
Significant impacts are expected on Exposition Boulevard and the north-south
segments of Yorkshire Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, and Warwick Avenue between
Exposition Boulevard and Delaware Avenue due to the rerouting of traffic. Specifically,
traffic will be routed to alfow accessing the DelawareNirginia area from Virginia and
Delaware Avenues to Yorkshire, Dorchester, and Warwick Avenues via Exposition
Boulevard. Other local street segments, however, show beneficial effects due to the
rerouted traffic. With the closure of Virginia and Delaware Avenues, all the east-west
segments south of Exposition Boulevard showed marked reductions in ADT, ranging
~
from about 14% to as high as 96%.
Scenario 3- Curb Extensions; No Turns to Warwick from Exposition. This
scenario involves curb extensions at each neighborhood intersection with no turning
movements allowed into Warwick Avenue from Exposition Boulevard.
Scenario 4- Curb Extensions; No Access to Warwick fram Exposition. This
scenario is similar to Scenario 3 except that it would involve full closure of Warwick
Avenue at Exposition Boulevard.
Scenario 5- Curb Extensions; No Access to Dorchester or Warwick from
Exposition. This scenario proposes curb extensions at all neighborhood intersections
with full street closures of Dorchester Avenue at Exposition Boulevard and Warwick
Avenue at Exposition Boulevard.
21
Under Scenarios 3, 4, and 5, traffic rerouted due to turn restrictions at Warwick Avenue
(Scenario 3), closure of Warwick Avenue (Scenario 4), and closures of Warwick and
Dorchester Avenues (Scenario 5) south of Exposition Boulevard would have significant
effects on adjacent streets for each of the respective scenarios. As Table 4.1-13
shows, Dorchester Avenue between Exposition Boulevard and Delaware Avenue for
Scenario 3, portions of Yorkshire, Dorchester, and Delaware Avenues for Scenario 4,
and portions of Yorkshire and Delaware Avenues for Scenario 5 are projected to
experience significant impacts. In addition, the segment of Exposition Boulevard
between the Lantana South driveway and 34th Street is projected to significantly
affected under Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 due to traffic diverted from the north-south streets
directly to Centinela Avenue, this impact is triggered by the City's significance criteria
for local street segments with more than 2,250 ADT, on which any addition of traffic is
considered significant.
In addition, Scenario 5 would cause a significant increase in traffic related noise on a
segment of Yorkshire Avenue.
Scenario 6- Curb Extensions: No Access to Yorkshire, Dorchester, Warwick, or
34th/Delaware from Exposition. This scenario involves full closure of all north-south
streets that connect Exposition and Virginia Avenue (34th Street, Warwick Avenue,
Dorchester Avenue, and Yorkshire Avenue) at Exposition Boulevard.
As shown in Table 4.1-13, Virginia and Delaware Avenues would have significant
impacts for all the street segments since all local traffic would be routed to access the
22
DelawareNirginia Area through these two streets. Since the majority of traffic would be
rerouted to other streets, however, all north-south street segments along Yorkshire
Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, and Warwick Avenue benefit in having decreased traffic
volumes.
Scenario 7- Curb Extensions: No Left Turns from Exposition Boulevard onto
Warwick, Dorchester, and Yorkshire Avenues. This scenario was submitted by a group
of residents as a comment on the Draft SEIR. This scenario is similar to Scenario 1 in
that curb extensions and crosswalks would be provided at all neighborhood
intersections. The exception is that no curb extensions would be constructed at the
intersection of Virginia Avenue and Centinela Avenue. This scenario would prohibit left
turns from Exposition Boulevard onto Warwick, Dorchester, and Yorkshire Avenues
through construction of wedge or crescent-shaped islands at each of the three
intersections, and installation of a sign that restricts cars departing from the IMAX exit to
left or r.ight turns to limit travel into the neighborhood on Dorchester Avenue. Right turns
from Exposition Boulevard onto Warwick, Dorchester, and Yorkshire Avenues and both
left and right turns out from Warwick, Dorchester, and Yorkshire Avenues onto
Exposition Boulevard would continue to be allowed. This scenario would also restrict
vehicles from exiting 34th Street/Defaware Avenue onto Centinela Avenue, but would
allow vehicles to enter from Centinela Avenue.
All north-south street segments along Yorkshire Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, and
Warwick Avenue would benefit by having decreased traffic volumes under Scenario 7
since a portion of the inbound traffic on these streets would be rerouted to other streets.
23
Traffic volumes on Virginia Avenue are projected to increase, however, as traffic turning
into the neighborhood from Centinela Avenue via Exposition Boulevard shifts to Virginia
Avenue. Table 5A-4 indicates that increased traffic volumes on Virginia Avenue would
create a significant impact on the segment between Centinela Avenue and Warwick
Avenue. Overall, Scenario 7 would have significant environmental impacts at only one
street segment, less than any of the other neighborhood protection scenarios tested
except Scenario 1. The geometry of the proposed intersection may need to be altered
to maintain good emergency vehicle response times to all portions of this
neighborhood. A design that allows full access to emergency vehicles would also allow
unauthorized access by passenger vehicles.
The following table identifies street segments that would be impacted by each of the
proposed scenarios:
Summary of Neighborhood Protection Plan
Intersection Impacts (Table 4.1-9)
Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant
Peak Impact for Impact for Impact for Impact for Impact for Impact for Impact for
Intersection Hour Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7
Stewart St & Olympic Blvd AM YES YES YES YES YES NO NO
PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Stewart St & Exposition Blvd AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
2 PM NO YES NO NO NO NO NO
Stewart SU28~ St & Pico Blvd AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Centinela Ave (east) & AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
01 m ic Blvd PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Centinela Ave & Exposition AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Blvd (west) j1] PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Worstapproachonly AM YES YES YES YES YES NO YES
Worsta roachonl PM NO YES NO NO NO NO YES
Centinela Ave & I-10 WB AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
ram s PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Centinela Ave & Pico Blvd AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Summarized from Tab/e 11 of the traffic report included in Appendix 8 of the SEIR.
(1] Intersection controlled by stop signs on the minor approaches.
(2] Intersection controlled by stop signs on all approaches.
24
Summary of Neighborhood Protection Plan
Street Segment Impacts (from Table 4.1-13)
Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant
Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor
Street Segment Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7
Exposition Blvd.
Stewart to Centinela NO YES YES YES YES NO NO
Delaware Ave.
Stewart to Warvvick NO NO NO YES YES YES NO
Delawarel34~" Street
Ex osition to Centinela NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Virginia Ave.
Stewart to Centinela NO NO NO NO NO YES YES
Yorkshire Ave.
Ex osition to Vi inia NO YES NO YES YES NO NO
Dorchester Ave.
Ex osition to Vi inia NO YES YES YES NO NO NO
Warwick Ave
Ex osition to Vi inia NO YES NO NO NO NO NO
' Most indicated impacts do not impact the entire street segment. See Table 4.1-13 of the Final SEIR for details.
As discussed, with low daily traffic volumes such as those shown in the neighborhood
streets south of Exposition Boulevard and the significant impact criteria set by the City,
any small movement or addition of traffic volume may create significant impacts for
some of the street segments. Similarly, however, other street segments within the
neighborhood would experience benefits in decreased traffic volumes from rerouted
traffic, as shown in Table 4.1-13 of the SEIR for the various traffic impact analysis
scenarios.
Both the proposed Lantana East and South projects may result in short-term effects on
surrounding neighborhoods during the construction period in the areas of air quality,
noise, and truck parking and queuing. These are considered to be significant, but
mitigable. Long-term effects to surrounding residential neighborhoods from traffic and
employee parking are considered to be significant. As discussed in the parking section
of the 2002 EIR, providing free employee parking would mitigate impacts that are
related to employees parking in the residential neighborhood. Such mitigation
25
measures are included in the Development Agreements. The projects will generate
significant traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated at the following intersections and
street segments:
Intersections
• Centinela Ave. at Exposition Blvd. (L.A. intersection)
• Centinela Ave. at I-10 westbound on/off ramp (S.M. & L.A, intersection)
• Centinela Ave. at Pico Blvd.
• Olympic Blvd. & Bundy Dr. (L.A. intersection)
Local Streets
• Exposition Blvd. between Centinela Ave. & Stewart St.
• Warwick Avenue between Exposition Blvd. & Virginia Ave.
• Virginia Avenue between Centinela Ave & Warwick Ave (Scenario 7).
These impacts cannot be mitigated because inadequate roadway width makes
mitigation measures that would increase capacity infeasible since increasing roadway
width would only be possible by eliminating sidewalks or acquiring private property. In
the case of the roadways that are in the City of Los Angeles or under CALTRANS
jurisdiction, those agencies will not allow the improvements and the City does not have
the ability to implement such improvements outside the City of Santa Monica's
jurisdiction. Some significant infersection impacts could be mitigated by adding a turn
lane to one or more intersection approaches; however, this type of improvement would
require the removal of on-street parking and/or narrowing of the sidewalk to
accommodate physical widening of the street. These measures would result in negative
impacts to the area, including impact to the residential neighborhood context, and
impact to pedestrian access through and around the area.
Narrowing sidewalk widths adversely affects the pedestrian environment by reducing
the area where pedestrians may walk and potentially forcing pedestrians into the street.
The removal of on-street parking reduces the number of available public parking spaces
26
in an area where parking is at a premium for nearby residents and businesses. And
finally, the widening of streets to accommodate additional vehicle trips, particularly in
residential areas, is contrary to City policy where the preservation of neighborhoods and
the pedestrian environment is highly valued. Therefore, the impacts resulting from an
increase in project-related vehicle trips are considered significant and unavoidable.
Proiect Alternatives
Three alternatives to the original project, No Project, Reduced Project Size (reduce floor
area by 33%), and Mixed Use Project (Production studio with artist live/work residential
development) were analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The No Project Alternative would be
environmentally superior to the proposed project on the basis of the minimization or
avoidance of physical environmental impacts: However, the CEQA Guidelines require
that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, "the EIR
shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives."
In terms of physical effects on the environment, the environmentally superior alternative
(other than the No Project) is the Reduced Project Alternative, which results in a
reduction in adverse impacts with respect to transportation/traffic effects, but like the
current proposal, does not reduce them to a level where they are less than significant.
The alternatives were considered infeasible because even the environmentally superior
alternative would neither reduce impacts to less than significant, or meet project
objectives since it would not provide studio uses at the intensity intended by the
applicant.
27
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
If the City approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must
prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific
social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's decision
Public benefits derived from the project include: new restrooms at Stewart Park;
improvements at Edison Elementary School for the City's Playground Partnership
recreation program; financial contributions to subsidize costs of operating the
Playground Partnership Program at Edison Elementary School; new sidewalks on
Centinela Avenue and Olympic Boulevard; financial contributions to City childcare and
art or cultural programs at Virginia Avenue Park; annual symposium/job fairs for at-risk
youth and young adults; a program to hire local residents for on-site jobs; use of a
meeting room for local community groups; a prominent, well designed project that
implements City urban design policies to create an architecturally distinctive gateway
along one of the City's prominent boulevards; and development of a project that
exceeds City Green Building standards for private projects. With staff recommended
amendments to the Development Agreements, staff supports a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for approval of the projects as required by CEQA since the proposed
project benefits outweigh the project's significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts which have been reduced by the 15% reduction in the size of Lantana South,
and the proposed traffic protection plan. The draft resolution adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is contained in Attachment G.
28
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
The findings required for approval of a Development Agreement mandate that the
project is consistent with "the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs
specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan." Both projects are
consistent with the Genera! Plan and there is no specific plan for the LMSD District.
However, the potential Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan Scenarios 2 and 4 through
6, that incorporate dead-end streets to prevent traffic from passing through the
residential neighborhood immediate south of Exposition Boulevard are not consistent
with the range of Neighborhood Traffic Control Plan features that are identified in the
General Plan Circulation Element.
Scenario's 1 and 7, are consistent with the Circulation Element because they avoid
traffic impacts, allow emergency access and trash pick-up, and minimize circuitous
routes for neighborhood residents. Should the City Council determine that one of the
scenarios that incorporates street closures warrant adoption, the following Circulation
Element amendment would be required:
"Incorporate the following additional Neighborhood Traffic Control Plan Strategy into the
Neighborhood Traffic Control Section of the Circulation Element (Page 126):
o Cul-de-sac or dead-end street segment roadway designs to reroute through
traffic. Since these roadway design features have offsetting negative impacts,
they should only be considered after staff completes public outreach, public
disclosure of potential adverse impacts and there is evidence that the affected
29
neighborhood(s) support implementation. Such measures should not
unreasonable restrict access to emergency vehicles, or other public services,
including, but not limited to trash pick-up.
MUNICIPAL CODE CONFORMANCE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Development Agreement law allows the City Council to modify the LMSD development
standards that would otherwise apply to the project. Except for limited portions of
Lantana East building fa~ade that projects into the Olympic Boulevard setback, both
projects comply with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff supports the 6'
encroachment at the second and third floor levels into the 20' Olympic Boulevard
setback because it allows for a superior architectural design.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The applicant has posted a sign on each property stating the project application
information, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, public hearing
information and City Planning phone number.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.20.14.010 and 9.48.110, notice of the public
hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property
located within a 500 foot radius of the project site. In addition, notice was given to
residents of the neighborhood south of the site, all the City's neighborhood groups and
to other persons interested in the project, at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to
the hearing. The notice was also published in the "California" section of the Los
Angeles Times. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment C.
30
In conjunction with the Supplemental EIR preparation, a notice of availability of the
DEIR, was sent to all property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius, residents
south of Exposition Boulevard, all the City's neighborhood groups and to other persons
interested in the project. City Staff also held six meetings with residential neighbors to
discuss neighborhood traffic problems and potential protection measures. The appiicant
indicates that they have met with the immediate neighbors, numerous neighborhood
groups and Edison School staff.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report to approve the Development Agreements
would require the developer to fund specific public capital improvement projects and
supplement operating costs for City childcare and playground partnership. While the
developer's funding will offset the need for the City to fund these programs during the
life of the agreement, the City's operating costs for Playground Partnership at Edison
School will increase approximately $35,000 per year after the term of the Agreements.
Playground Partnership is a one year agreement with the school district that is
referenced in the Master Agreement. Given this and the fact that the Lantana projects
will not be completed this fiscal year, the Edison School site will be incorporated into the
Playground Partnership agreement with the School District at such time as the
improvements are compieted.
In addition, the City would bear part of the costs of constructing the proposed public
restrooms at Stewart Park through payment of costs associated with sub-foundation
31
work. Since the cost of this work has not been determined at this time, Stewart Park
improvement would return for future City Council approval of the work and funding.
MMARY AND CONCLUSlON
The building's location on each lot and their setback from the streets, their shape and
overall mass is compatible with adjacent development and land uses. A number of Green
Building standards, including maximizing natural lighting, natural ventilation from
operable windows and permeable paving are proposed. Limited portions of Lantana
East will encroach into the Olympic Boulevard setback; otherwise, both projects comply
with all city Zoning Ordinance regulations and General Plan policies.
However, the project would generate additional traffic and parking impacts that would
adversely impact the neighborhood and area traffic. Traffic impacts cannot be mitigated
to acceptable levels. Traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood located south of
Exposition Boulevard was the focus of concern when the Planning Commission and City
Council considered the prior application. This area currently experiences cut-through
traffic and this project would exacerbate the issue. Two new proposals: 1) the size of
Lantana South reduced by 15%, thereby reducing traffic by 15%, and 2) neighborhood
traffic protection plan improvements proposed to discourage cut-through traffic, would
reduce this problem substantially compared to the project that was considered in 2002.
The proposed Development Agreement would obligate the developer of Lantana East
and Lantana South to: contribute $400,000 ($925,000 recommended) to support early
childhood development; replace and upgrade the public restroom building in Stewart
32
Street Park; construct playground improvements at Edison Elementary School for the
City's Playground Partnership Program; provide $178,000 to fund some of the operating
costs associated with maintenance, custodial needs and monitoring of the Edison
School Playground Partnership site; construct sidewalks on Olympic Boulevard and
Centinela Avenue between Lantana East and Exposition Boulevard; contribute $50,000
to fund one-time capital or event costs that enhance Virginia Avenue Park programs,
including one-time costs associated with the park-based Youth Center (multimedia
area) in the event that grant funds are not available or are insufficient for full build-out in
this area and fund the proposed Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan improvements.
Considering the reduction in project size, new neighborhood traffic protection proposal
and pubiic benefits, the overall project benefits outweigh the negative traffic impacts and
the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the proposed Development
Agreements if the Agreements are modified as outlined in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Certify the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report;
2. Make CEQA findings necessary to approve the projects, adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program;
3. Introduce two Ordinances adopting both Development Agreements, including:
• Amendments to the public benefits as recommended in this report;
• The tentative parcel maps;
• Neighborhood Protection Plan Scenario 7 and
33
ATTACHMENT A
JULY 14, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT & MINUTES
~R~GINA~.
7 -a
PCD:AS:JL:BL:f:\plan\share\pc\stfrpt\03\03dev001 Lantana Santa Monica, California
Planning Commission Meeting: July 14, 2004
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning and Community Development Department Staff
SUBJECT: Development Agreement 03-001, General Plan Amendment 04-001;
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 00-002
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Address:
Applicant:
INTRODUCTION
3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East)
3131 Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South)
Lantana-Hines Development, LLC
Summarv: Two Development Agreements are proposed to allow the construction of two
studio buildings on noncontiguous parcels which are under common ownership. The
Development Agreements also include Tentative Parcel Maps for each site that would
allow each building to have different owners with the land and parking owned by the
airspace association. More specifically:
Lantana East. 3030 Olympic Boulevard - a new three-story, 64,'105 square foot
entertainment production/post-production studio building with a two-level subterranean
parking garage providing parking for the existing building and 200 spaces for the proposed
building.
Lantana South, 3131 Exposition Boulevard - a new three-story, 130,000 square foot
entertainment production/post-production studio building with a one level subterranean
parking garage providing parking for the existing building and 364 spaces for the proposed
building.
The City denied two similar projects in 2002. Traffic impacts on the residential
neighborhood located south of Exposition Boulevard were the focus of these prior
applications. This residential area currently experiences cut-through traffic and these
projects would exacerbate this condition. Seven potential Neighborhood Traffic
Protection Plan scenarios are proposed to discourage cut-through traffic. Some of the
scenarios utiliZe dead-end streets, which, if selected, would require an amendment to
the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Action: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report;
2. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations;
3. Recommend that the City Council approve both Development Agreements, subject
to:
Amendments to the public benefits as recommended in this report;
Adoption of Neighborhood Protection Plan Scenario 1; and
If a Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan Scenario is recommended with dead-
end streets, recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution amending
the Circulation Element.
Recommendation: Approval with modifications to the public benefit proposals as
outlined in the staff report.
Permit Streamlinina Expiration Date: Not applicable to projects involving legislative
action, such as the proposed Development Agreements.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Lantana East site, located at 3030 Olympic Boulevard, has 1,370 feet of frontage
on the south side of Olympic Boulevard, 128 feet of frontage on Stewart Street and
contains 7.26 acres. The subject site is currently developed with two and three story
entertainment studio buildings (Lantana West and Center) containing 251,906 square
feet of floor area with 649 parking spaces.
The Lantana South site, located at 3131 Exposition Boulevard, has 726 feet of frontage
on the north side of Exposition Boulevard, between 34th Street and Dorchester Avenue
and contains 4.99 acres. The subject site is currently developed with a two-story,
65,007 square foot film production and distribution building (IMAX), a surface parking lot
and a film equipment storage lot.
Adjacent uses are:
• North, across Olympic Boulevard, single and two story office, entertainment
production and a private schoo(, LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio) District;
• South, across Exposition Boulevard, one and two story, single and multi-family
units, R1, (Single-Family Residential) and R2 (Low Density Muttiple Residential)
Districts;
• East, single story industrial, automobile service and TV production, LMSD (Light
Manufacturing Studio) District;
• West, The Verizon (GTE) maintenance yard, and Across Stewart Street, single
and two story entertainment production facilities, LMSD (Light Manufacturing
Studio) District; and
• The 100' wide MTA Public Transportation right-of-way which separates the sites,
is used for temporary parking and a femporary television stage set, in the LMSD
(Light Manufacturing Studio) District;
Zoning District: LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio District)
Land Use District: Specialty Office District
2
Parcel Area: 7.26 Acres, Lantana East, Center & West
4.99 Acres, Lantana South
12.25 Acres Total
This staff report provides background information and recommendations on (1) the
proposed Development Agreements, (2) Potential Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan,
(3) environmental analysis of the project, and (4) the potential General Plan Amendment
associated with certain Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan measures.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of two Development Agreements. The Development
Agreements include approval of all aspects of the project's design, except signs and
landscaping irrigation plans, which will be subject to Architectural Review Board
approva~. The Agreements incorporate mitigation measures and conditions of approval.
The Development Agreements also include tentative parcel maps that would allow each
building to have different owners with the land and parking owned by the airspace
association. Both project sites would replace surface parking lots with new three-story,
contemporary design buildings for entertainment production/post-production studio uses.
The Lantana East and Lantana South projects currently before the Commission total
194,000 square feet, which is a 10% reduction in floor area size from the previous
projects. The reduced square footage has been eliminated from the Lantana South
project, which is 15% smaller in size.
Lantana East
Lantana East would contain a total of 64,105 square feet of building area (9,616 square
feet of o~ce/editing space and 54,489 square feet of production space). Parking will be
provided in a two level, 378-space subterranean parking garage in addition to 55 surface
spaces for a total of 433 spaces. Two hundred of the new spaces are designated for the
proposed building and 133 spaces are required to replace existing parking for the Lantana
Center building. The Lantana East, West and Center site would provide a total of 845
parking spaces. If approved, the "Lantana EasY' Development Agreement would govem
this site.
Lantana South
Lantana South would contain 30,543 square feet of office/editing space and 122,177
square feet of production space, totaling 152,721 square feet. Parking will be provided
by a single-level, 303-space subterranean parking garage plus 133 surface spaces for a
total of 456 spaces. Three hundred sixty four of the new spaces are designated for the
proposed building and 92 spaces are required to replace existing parking for the IMAX
building. This site provides a total of 536 parking spaces. If approved, the "Lantana
South" Development Agreement would govern this site.
The proposed Development Agreements include several project enhancements that
would provide substantial public benefit to safeguard and enhance the quality of life in
the neighborhood, including improvements to Stewart Park, improvements at Edison
School for the City's Playground Partnership recreation program, new sidewalks on
Centinela Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, and financial support of the City arts
3
programs and City childcare. As proposed, the Development Agreements would vest
the development rights far five years. The applicant, Lantana-Hines Development
(Lantana-Hines) would need to obtain building permit and complete construction of the
project by December 31, 2009.
Seven Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan scenarios are presented with the
Development Agreements. Multiple scenarios are presented to give the Planning
Commission and City Council a range of options to choose from as well as an
understanding of their effectiveness and their negative effects. For example, several
scenarios effectively block cut-through traffic, however they also restrict residents from
entering their own neighborhood. Shifting traffic patterns cause traffic to be more
concentrated on the streets that are not restricted, resulting in new adverse impacts on
those streets. Detail description of the scenarios and analysis is proyided in the CEQA
section of this report and the Final SEIR. An amendment to the Circulation Element of
the General Plan would also be necessary if the City Council adopts one of the potential
Neighborhood Protection Plan scenarios that include dead-end streets. The potential
need for a General Plan amendment is discussed later in this report.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Development Agreements attached to this report (Lantana East Attachment D and
Lantana South Attachment E) are documents proposed by the applicant, Lantana-Hines
Development, LLC (Lantana-Hines). Staff agrees with the majority of the contents,
however, there are provisions pertaining to the proposed public benefits that staff does
not support. While staff and Lantana-Hines representatives have worked for months to
resolve a!I of the outstanding issues, significant issues remain where staff and ~antana-
Hines have agreed to disagree and allow these issues to be resolved through the public
review process by the City Council based on Pianning Commission recommendations.
These areas of disagreement relate to the amount of public benefit being proposed in
the Development Agreement and are discussed in detail in this report.
The Development Agreements allow greater latitude to advance local planning policies
compared to the Development Review Permit process. While a development
agreement is an alternative to the standard development approval process, in practice it
is similar to other public review processes where the City Council makes the final
decision with the exception that the City Council has more discretion in imposing
conditions and requirements on the proposed project since the Development
Agreements are adopted by ordinance.
Prior to formai action by the City, the applicant's request to pursue Development
Agreements for this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council
last summer. The City Council considered comments from the Planning Commission
and discussed the appropriateness of a Development Agreement for redevelopment of
these sites, the project's potential public benefits and negotiating points that should be
addressed. As a result of that discussion, staff was directed to pursue the following
issues with regards to negotiating a development agreement for both Lantana projects:
1. Investigate incorporating the Verizon property (if feasible).
4
Not feasible - Acquisition, developmenf and relocation of the existing
maintenance facility to another 9.7-acre site wifhin the area is cost
prohibitive to the applicant. In addition, the existing Lantana sites would
still eventually be developed with a use that would have similar impacts on
the neighborhood;
2. Promote access to on-site public space.
Lanfana South provides an open campus design with an open walkway to
a public garden space;
3. Provide recommendations & update City Council regarding CEQA & fiming.
Info Items & notices of public meetings provided updates;
4. Include benefits from prior development application.
Conditions & mitigation measures of prior DR permit are included (Exhibits
D& E). Bofh buildings incorporate the same Green Building features;
5. Assure maximum reduction of car trips.
Tenants with 25 or more employees would be subject to the City's TMD
Ordinance. A new City/MTA bicycle route that wil! encourage non-
motorized site access, is scheduled to be constructed along the MTA right-
of-way this fiscal year;
6. Investigate auto access from Olympic Boulevard.
Analyzed in adopfed EIR as not feasible due to substantial constraints
associated with spanning the 100' wide MTA right-of-way without infringing
on the ability to develop the transit corridor, concern that the MTA would
not permit a private crossing and the significant amount of land that would
be needed for bridge or tunnel ramps on each side;
7. Provide shuttle service linking specified destinations.
None proposed;
8. Participate in art programs in public schools.
Developer wi!! contribute $50,000 for City arts programs;
9. Create pedestrian connections.
Each project site incorporates studio campus features with pedestrian
connections. Lantana Soufh provides an open public garden space. New
sidewalks on fhe soufh side of Olympic Boulevard and west side of
Centinela Avenue will be constructed. Mid-block pedestrian crossing at the
MTA R/W is not proposed due to safety concerns associated with the
intended use of the transit corridor;
10. Improve internal pedestrian orientation.
Internal walkways and landscaping improves pedestrian orientation; and
11. Develop a Neighborhood Protection Plan.
The City Council stated that an effective Neighborhood Traffic Protection
Plan is instrumental in its consideration of the Deve%pment Agreements.
To present a thorough analysis of the plan, staff considered seven
scenarios, which are evaluated in the SEIR. Scenario 1 provides positive
benefifs with the least negative impacts. The program selected by the City
5
Council will be implemented by the developer prior to the completion of
Lantana South.
Development Agreement Overview
A development agreement is a contract between the City and a developer that
authorizes the type and amount of development that may occur within a specific period
of time. Development agreements are typically used to provide developers with
guaranteed development rights in exchange for clear public benefits. A development
agreement must comply with the General Plan and Specific Plans but can supercede
zoning regulations by establishing its own set of development standards.
Chapter 9.48 of the Zoning Ordinance governs how the City reviews and either accepts,
modifies or rejects a Development Agreement proposal. After submitting a Development
Agreement application with the proposed agreement document, City staff meets with
the Developer to negotiate development provisions that are beneficial to both parties.
The proposal must be consistent with City policy, including the General Plan. Upon
completion of negotiations, the Director of Planning and Community Development is
responsible for the preparation of a staff report and scheduling a public hearing before
the Planning Commission. The staff report must analyze the proposed Development
Agreement and contain a recommendatian to approve, approve with amendments, or
disapprove the proposal. After conducting a hearing, the Planning is required to make
its recommendation to the City Council within. 30 days of the public hearing. Their
recommendation must include the findings contained in Section 9.48.130. The
Development Agreement proposal will be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration after the Planning Commission completes their recommendations, or in
30 days if the commission fails to make a recommendation.
Separate Development Agreements are proposed for each site, Lantana East and
Lantana South, however they are closely connected. Even though these projects are on
separate parcels of land, they are directly related by common ownership/applicant and are
in close proximity to each other and Lantana East and West have the same impacts, and
will be constructed within five years. Consequently, the proposed project for purposes of
the Development Agreement application and CEQA analysis are being processed in
combination. Both Development Agreements are divided into Articles, each describing
or authorizing specific elements of the total development. The Agreements consists of
15 Articles and 16 exhibits for Lantana East and 18 Exhibits for Lantana South.
Elements of the Development Agreements are discussed in more detail later in this
report. The following summarizes the contents:
Article 1: Defines key terms used in the Agreement. The definitions are consistent with
existing City practices and descriptions.
Article 2: Describes the Project, including building design, height, parking, permitted
uses, development standards, the parcel maps, vested rights, project modifications,
public benefits and public improvements, with references to key exhibits, including the
project plans. As discussed further in this report, staff believes that some of the Public
Benefit provisions of this section of the Agreement are inadequate given the size of the
projects.
6
Article 3: Describes the construction of the project, including construction mitigation,
staging, and hours, with references to key exhibits. The Agreement extends permitted
construction hours under certain conditions.
Artic(e 4: Describes fees and mitigation measures associated with the Project. Each
project would pay all City fees that are currently applicable to this type and size of
project.
Article 5: Describes the City's codes and regulations governing the Project. These
provisions are consistent with current City practice and procedures.
Article 6: Describes the roles of the Architectural Review Board in review of the Project.
These provisions limit the review authority of the Architectural Review Board and
provide the Planning Commission and City Council with all design authority except that
related to signage and landscape irrigation design.
Article 7: Describes the process of obtaining building permits and other technical
permits for the Project.
Article 8: Describes the process for amendment of the Development Agreement.
Article 9: Defines the term of the agreement.
Article 10: Describes the process for periodic review of the applicant's compliance with
the Development Agreement.
Article 11: Describes the process and procedures in the event of a failure to perform the
obligations contained in the Development Agreement.
Article 12: Describes rights and procedures for notifying mortgagees.
Article 13: Describes the right to transfer property and liability.
Article 14: Identifies indemnification responsibilities.
Article 15: Describes the contractual obligations of both parties to the agreement.
Articles 7 through 15 are consistent with other recent Development Agreements.
Public Benefits
The proposed Development Agreements ob(igate the developer of Lantana East and
Lantana South to provide the following public benefits:
o Contribute $400,000 ($80,000 per year) to the City to support early childhood
development. The subsidy would support up to 9 children under five years
old per year, for up to 5 years. As discussed below, staff believes that this
early childhood development proposal is under funded;
7
o Replace and upgrade the public restroom buiiding in Stewart Street Park.
This park serves the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed development
and the park's restroom building needs replacement and upgrading to serve
the neighborhood adjacent to the project. The City would contribute to the
costs associated with constructing a foundation system;
o Construct playground improvements at Edison Elementary School for the
City's Playground Partnership program. This is the nearest school site to the
projects. The facility would support neighborhood access to school
recreational space during non-school hours. This use includes the Childcare
Recreafion Enrichment Sports Together (CREST) afterschooi program as well
as youth and family access during weekends and holidays. Improvements
include a small building to house restrooms, playground equipment and the
Playground Partnership/CREST staff office of approximately 600 square feet;
o The Development Agreement wouid provide $178,000 ($35,600 per year) to
fund some of the operating costs associated with maintenance, custodia!
needs and monitoring of the above Playground Partnership site for up to five
years;
o Construct sidewa(ks on Olympic Boulevard and Centinela Avenue between
Lantana East and Exposition Boulevard. Significant sections of these public
street parkways have no sidewalks. The sidewalks connect the projects and
will be heavily utilized;
o Fund the proposed neighborhood traffic protection plan improvements; and
o Contribute $50,000 to City arts programs.
With two exceptions, staff supports the proposed public benefit package. Given the
overall size of the project and benefit to Lantana-Hines in the form of vested rights to
develop both properties over a five year period, the ~arly childhood support funding
should be increased. The City intends to dedicate the childcare monies to scholarships
for low-income households. City policy cites the need for early childhood development
and childcare that is accessible to low income households, including single-parent
households. The proposed $400,000 would provide $80,OOQ per year for five years.
The typical annual cost of providing childcare is $9,250 per child, per year. Accordingly,
the proposal will provide full scholarships for less than 9 children. Staff supports a
subsidy that would support 20 chifdren per year, $185,000 per year for five years (20
children x$9,250 =$185,000 x 5 years =$925,000). This level of funding is consistent
with the amount of funds a project of this size should provide for childcare given the
childcare need they generate.
In addition, the proposed Development Agreement does not obligate Lantana East to
participate in either Stewart Park or the Edison School Playground Partnership site
improvements. As proposed, these improvements would not be provided in the event
Lantana South is not constructed even if Lantana East is developed. While sfaff
supports prorating the amount of money for childcare and to fund City art programs
based on the size of each building, both projects should be obligated to construct the
improvements to Stewart Park and Edison School.
Both of these project enhancements were selected because they are near the proposed
development and they will directly benefit the neighbors that are most effected by the
8
project. These recreation improvements would address project impacts on recreation
resources generated by the 194,105 square feet of production studio uses that would
increase the number of employees at the sites by about 524 people. Consequently,
both of these developments would increase demand on park facilities in the area.
Commercial land uses (including production and office uses) substantially affect the
City's park system, placing demands on park resources by using facilities at lunch,
participating in sports leagues and using baseball fields, basketball courts and other
facilities before and after work.
Staff Recommendation
1) Increase the early childhood development contribution from $400,000 to
$925,000, in five annual payments of $185,000 per year.
2) Modify the Milestones, Section 5.5.5 and Exhibit G, of the Lantana East
Agreement to include the Stewart Park and Edison School Playground
Partnership improvements.
Project Desian
The Development Agreement includes approval of the plans for the Project. These
plans provide details regarding the proposed building orientation, height, massing,
setbacks, stepbacks, open space, access, and parking. In addition, under Article 6 of
the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission and City Council are acting as
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in the review and approval of both buildings.
Subject to final review by the City Council, the Planning Commission is responsible for
review and approval of all design elements including colors and materials but excluding
signage, landscape design and landscape irrigation, which will be reviewed by the ARB.
Lantana East
The proposal will add a third building to the eastern portion of the 7.28-acre site along
Olympic Boulevard. The proposed building would be setback 20' from Olympic
Boulevard, 24.6' from the east property line and 94.08' from the property line abutting
the MTA right-of-way. A 30' wide section of the second and third floors projects 4.5' into
the front setback, and balconies project 6' into the front setback. These projections
were added to the building design as a result of discussions with staff, including the
City's Urban Designer, in order to enliven the Olympic Boulevard fa~ade for pedestrian
and passing motorist. The building wiil have 60' of separation from the Lantana Center
building. The three-story building provides 2 levels of subterranean parking containing
383 parking spaces. Roof parapet screen walls are provided to screen roof mounted
mechanical equipment as well as future equipment associated with entertainment
production facilities, such as antennas for electronic media.
The building design is conceived as a basic rectangular concrete frame interrupted by
secondary stucco volumes projecting out and above the frame. The contemporary
farade is articulated by changes in wall plane, balconies and the use of different finish
materials and colors. The aluminum framed openable windows are recessed from the
face of the building. Varied roof parapet lines also enhance the building's contemporary
design. The building is designed to accommodate a single or multiple tenants. Interior
plans will be developed in the future based on tenant needs.
9
The primary pedestrian entrances are from the subterranean parking garage and the
south parking lot. There is no pedestrian access from Olympic Boulevard. A secondary
pedestrian entrance/emergency exit is located on the east side of the building. Surface
parking will also be located between the building and the MTA right-of-way. The 20'
front yard setback eliminates existing parking and provides for landscaping. The
setback and landscaping enhances the project's appearance from the street and is
consistent with General Plan Policy 3.3.15, to encourage reducing the visibility of
surface parking by requiring buildings or landscaping form a percentage of the street
faCade on major arterials.
Vehicle access to Lantana East parking will be from a wider driveway at the current
location, which is lacated between the proposed building and the existing Lantana
Center building. The existing landscaped median dividing eastbound and westbound
traffic on Olympic Boulevard prohibits left turns in or out of the site. An additional
driveway is located between Lantana Center and West, with a third driveway on Stewart
Street. These driveways primarily provide access to the Lantana Center and West
buildings.
Lanfana South
The proposal will add a second building to the east half of the 4.99-acre site along
Exposition Boulevard. The new building will be setback 40' from Exposition Boulevard,
63.6' from the east property line and 69' from the rear property line. It wilf have 30' of
separation from the IMAX building. The 3-story building would be over a single level
subterranean parking garage with 303 spaces. Roof parapet screen walls are provided
to screen roof mounted mechanical equipment as well as future equipment associated
with entertainment production facilities, such as antennas for electronic media. The
building is designed in an "H" configuration, with a center courtyard that faces the IMAX
building to the west and accessible parking to the east. The basic concept governing
the formal development of the building is similar to that of Lantana East. Here the basic
concept frame is formed around a courtyard and is interrupted by glass and metal
forms. An exterior stair and steel pergola at the main entry provide an additional level of
scalar development. The open stair at the front incorporates an open wall with a"folded
plane" design theme that is also used in the canopies between the main lobby and the
courtyard and garden area.
At 153' wide, the building's front fa~ade presents a modest size compared to 412' wide
building site. The wider rear portion is setback 130' from Exposition Boulevard,
reducing the building's apparent mass. Portions of the upper floors and balconies
project 6' from the basic building to enhance the fa~ade's articulation and interest. The
building's "H" shape, farade articulation, varied rooflines, balconies and wall projections
enhance the building's contemporary design. Interior plans will be developed in the
future based on tenant needs. The building is designed to accommodate a single or
multiple tenants.
The primary pedestrian entrance is from the west courtyard facing the IMAX building.
Most employees would enter the building directly from the parking garage. This is
intended to encourage employees and visitors to use on-site parking and discourage
on-street parking. The building will also have a public entrance on the east fa~ade near
10
the accessible parking and loading spaces. Other entrances face the center courtyard
and rear parking area. Required parking for the IMAX building will be maintained. A
one-way driveway connects the IMAX parking to the surface parking behind the new
building and the subterranean garage. The 40' building setback and reduction in front
parking provides ample room for landscaping. The setbacks and landscaping enhances
the project's appEarance from the street and buffers it from the residential uses on the
south side of Exposition Boulevard.
Vehicle access to the proposed parking garage will be from a driveway at the eastern
portion of the site. This access point is relatively close to Centineia Avenue. The ciose
proximity will encourage employees and visitors to access the site via Centinela Avenue
and Exposition Boulevard, but will not entirely eliminate traffic from traveling through the
adjacent residential neighborhood to the south. Neighborhood traffic incursion is
discussed in more detail in the EIR section of this report. A second driveway is located
at the west end of the site, at Dorchester Avenue, and provides access to the IMAX
building and the Verizon/GTE maintenance yard.
The Agreements propose to incorporate a number of Green Building standards,
including maximizing natural lighting, natural ventilation from operable windows,
permeable paving and the use of materials that eliminate or minimize the discharge of
chemicals or gases into the environment. These features exceed City Green Building
requirements, but do not qualify the buildings for LEED certification.
Landscapina
Lantana East
Landscaping is proposed along the Olympic Boulevard street frontage, as well as along
the east property line and in the driveway medians. The project will provide 4,264
square feet of landscaping which meets Code requirements and is designed to enhance
the overall project setting. A variety of drought tolerant trees and plants are used in the
landscape design of both sites. Complete landscape plans, including plant selection,
are included in the project plan booklets, contained in Attachments J and K.
Lantana South
Landscaping is proposed along the Exposition Boulevard street frontage, as well as in
front of the building, in the center courtyard and along the south and north property
lines. The area adjacent to the IMAX building is already landscaped. The project will
provide 14,846 square feet of landscaping which meets Code requirements and is
designed to screen IMAX parking and enhance the overall project setting. Detailed
landscape plans are included with the project plans in Attachments J and K, but not
irrigation plans. If these applications are approved, details of the landscape design will
be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Parking and Circulation
While the overall design of both projects are compatible with adjacent development and
uses, they will generate additional traffic and parking impacts that would adversely
impact the neighborhood and area traffic. Although parking impacts are addressed with
project conditions and mitigation measures, traffic impacts cannot be mitigated to
11
acceptable levels. Traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood located south of
Exposition Boulevard were the focus of concern when the Planning Commission and
City Council considered the prior application in 2002. This area currently experiences
cut-through traffic and this project would exacerbate these conditions. Two new
proposals would reduce this problem substantially, 1) the size of Lantana South is
reduced 15%, thereby reducing adjacent traffic by 15%, and 2) seven potential
Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan scenarios are proposed to discourage the cut-
through traffic. fn addition, the City of Los Angeles recently completed improvements to
Centinela Avenue, between Olympic Boulevard and I-10 Freeway that improves traffic
on the street segment and both intersections.
The six traffic scenarios that are analyzed in the Draft SEIR were developed with input
from residents of the affected area. A seventh scenario, analyzed in the Final SEIR,
was submitted as a comment on the Draft SEIR by a group of neighbors. City staff held
six meetings at the adjacent IMAX building and used mailings to solicit input to develop
a plan that would be acceptable to as braad a portion of the neighborhood as possible.
Minutes from those meetings are contained in Exhibit I. As analyzed in the SEIR,
measures that block cut-through traffic also restrict residents from entering their own
neighborhood. Shifting traffic patterns cause traffic to be more concentrated on the
streets that are not restricted, resulting in new adverse impacts on those streets. In
addition, blocking cut-through traffic also blocks emergency vehicles and can impact
public services, such as trash collection trucks. Although no consensus on any of the
proposed scenarios was reach, staff recommends Scenario 1 because it would provide
the greatest benefit with the least negative impacts. Details of the potential
Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan scenarios are presented in the CEQA Section of
this report and the Final SEIR.
Traffic Calming Measures
The City has a long history of trying to resolve residential traffic management issues.
Adopting effective residential traffic management programs are among the most
controversial issues a city faces. Traffic calming remains popular for its ability to
enhance safety, livability, and community development. The City has tried numerous
traffic calming measures with varying degrees of success. As early as 1984 with the
adoption of the Land Use and Circulation Element to the General Plan, Santa Monica
committed to implementing neighborhood traffic management measures. Starting in
1993, the City Council approved traffic management programs for the Mid-City, Pico,
Sunset Park and Ocean Park Neighborhoods. Although many residents want traffic
management devices on their streets, others do not want them and the Fire and Police
Departments express concern about emergency response issues. Considerable care is
needed to implement traffic calming measures without dramatically shifting unwanted
traffic volume and speed to neighboring streets.
The City Council designated Exposition Boulevard as an emergency response route in
2000. Traffic Control measures can restrict access to emergence service vehicles,
thereby impacting public safety. Due to these concerns, early strategies relied on speed
humps as an effective means of managing traffic speed. While speed humps were
identified as an effective means of managing traffic speed, in practice, however, speed
humps also negatively impact response time. Traffic calming measures can also impact
12
bus routs and other services, such as trash pick-up. Roundabouts and curb extensions
have been effectively implemented in Santa Monica with few negative impacts.
Both project sites would replace surface parking lots that currently provide required
parking for existing buildings. The existing parking would be replaced and parking
provided for the new buildings that comply with City Parking requirements. Approximately
20% of the Lantana East and 16% of the Lantana South projects will be tandem access
spaces with valet service. Because parking compliance is based on a large portion of the
building being designated for production uses, which has lower parking requirement than
most uses, including many post production and ancillary office uses, Section 2.7 and
Exhibit f of the Development Agreement clarifies that use of all buildings are restricted by
the amount of available parking. The parking and traffic conditions and mitigation
measures recommended for the prior Development Review Permit applications are
included in both Development Agreements.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Lantana East
Both proposed projects would replace surface parking lots with a contemporary building.
The proposed building is compatible with the two existing buildings and would further
improve the site's "garden office or campus" environment. One and two story office,
private school, TV production, industrial buildings and a rail corridor characterize
development that surround the site. Staff believes that the overall design, height, mass
and location of the proposed building on the lot is compatible with the adjacent
development and uses. The building's size and mass is reduced by a combination of
factors, including its 20-foot street setback; 24 and 60 foot separations from adjacent
buildings; landscaping along Olympic Boulevard and the 117-foot width of Olympic
Boulevard.
Lantana South
The north side of Exposition Boulevard is currently developed with industrial and
entertainment production facilities. The building for the Verizon maintenance yard is
located adjacent to the street, extends most of the way to Stewart Street and provides
limited architectural interest. An eight-foot high chain-link fence along the street
frontage and a 20' to 25' high brick building characferize development east of the site.
The eastern portion of the subject site is currently a fenced mavie equipment storage
lot. The proposed 3 story contemporary building is compatible with the IMAX building
and development along the Olympic/Exposition Light Manufacturing Studio District
corridor.
One and two story homes and apartments characterize development across Exposition
Boulevard to the south. The remainder of the neighborhood, which extends to the
Santa Monica, I-10 Freeway, is single-family homes. This low-density neighborhood is
considered to be a sensitive land use. Staff believes that the overall design, height,
mass and location on the iot of the proposed building is compatible with the adjacent
residential neighborhood. In addition to the 60-foot width of Exposition Boulevard, the
building will be setback another 40 feet, providing over 100 feet of distance from
residential front yards to the front of the building. In addition, the row of pepper trees
will be continued along the frontage as a landscape buffer to the residential neighbors.
13
While the front setback will have a driveway for on-site circulation, only a smail amount
of parking will be allowed in front of the new building. Replacing a surface parking lot
with the proposed 40-foot landscaped setback softens the appearance of the building.
The combination of building setbacks, the relatively narrow front facade and
landscaping reduces the apparent mass of the proposed building when viewed from the
residential front yards.
Vested Rights
The Development Agreement gives Lantana-Hines five years, unti~ December 31, 2009,
to complete both projects providing they comply with the Mifestones set forth in Section
2.5.5. Lantana-Hines is not obligated to construct either project, in which case, the
abandoned Agreement will automatically terminate.
Permitted Uses
Permitted uses are specified in Section 2.6 of the Development Agreement. The
proposed uses are consistent with uses permitted in the LMSD District.
Fees and Mitiqation Measures
The developer will pay all fees, charges, exactions; implement all mitigation measures
and comply with conditions that are currently imposed on similar projects. The list of
these requirements are contained in Exhibits B, D, E and F.
Subsequent Review
The Development Agreement provides that the City Council has approval authority for
the building design, with the exception of signage and iandscaping, which will be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. In addition, Article 10 requires annual
review of each Development Agreement for compliance with terms of the agreement,
such as meeting Milestones specified in Section 2.5.5. Otherwise, construction permits
are subject to standard processing for compliance with pertinent building and safety
regutations.
CEQA ANALYSIS
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the original project in 2001.
The EIR was finalized in 2002 and the Santa Monica City Council certified the Final EIR
on November 12, 2002. However, the City Council denied the project, primarily
because of concerns about traffic issues stemming from the Lantana South project.
The Mitigation Measures and Conditions recommended in the 2002 FEIR are
incorporated into both Development Agreements (Exhibits E and F). A copy of the 2002
Certified FEIR is contained in Attachment G.
In response to the City's concerns, the applicant revised the project and submitted this
Development Agreement application requesting approval of a similar, but slightly
smaller project. In addition to changing the size of the project, the applicant also
proposed a number of public improvements that were not part of the original project and
thus were not evaluated in the 2002 Final EIR. Because the overall size of the project is
being reduced by 10%, traffic and noise impacts will also be reduced by 10%. Due to
its size and location on Exposition Boulevard, Lantana South generated a greater
14
portion of the neighborhood impacts. Since the size of Lantana South is reduced 15%,
traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood streets are reduced by 15%. In addition,
street and intersection improvements that were completed after the project was denied
in 2002 also increases traffic capacity on Centinela Avenue between Olympic Boulevard
and I-10 Freeway. Whi~e these changes reduce the impacts that were determined to be
significant in the 2002 FEiR, they would not be reduced ta a less than significant level
and the original mitigation measures apply to the current proposal. While the reduced
development project would not have any new or increased significant effects on the
environment, the proposed public improvements could potentially create significant
traffic impacts, noise impacts, or other neighborhood effects. Accordingly, a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared to examine the
potential effects of the proposed changes to the project.
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the proposed
changes in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR was distributed to affected agencies, surrounding
cities, counties, and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with
Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. Copies of the Draft SEIR were made available
on April 4, 2004 for the public review period, which closed on June 7, 2004. A total of
seven comment letters on the draft SEIR were received. These comment letters, as
well as the response to comments, are included in Appendix D of the Final SEIR. The
Final SEIR is included in this report in Attachment F.
The Initial Study determined that the proposed changes in the project would have
minimal, or no impacts on most environmenfal categories. However, the Neighborhood
Traffic Protection Plan scenarios could cause significant new traffic impacts. In addition,
scenario 5 would cause a significant increase in traffic related noise on a segments of
Yorkshire Avenue.
The Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan scenarios were evaluated because traffic
impacts on the residential neighborhood located south of Exposition Boulevard was the
primary focus of concern when the Planning Commission and City Council considered
the prior application. As discussed earlier in this report, this area currently experiences
cut-through traffic and this project would exacerbate the issue. The seven traffic
scenarios that are analyzed in the Final SEIR were developed with input from residents
of the effected area. The scenarios that block cut-through traffic also restrict residents
from entering their own neighborhood. Shifting traffic patterns cause traffic to be more
concentrated on the streets that are not restricted, resulting in new adverse impacts on
those streets.
Due to the low daily traffic volumes on most of the neighborhood streets south of
Exposition Boulevard and the significant impact criteria set by the City, relatively small
increases in traffic volume can create significant impacts for some of the street
segments. As a result, all of the scenarios have significant traffic impacts. Staff
recommends Scenario 1 because it would provide the greatest benefit with little
negative impacts on the effected residents. All six scenarios are described and
analyzed in section 4.1 of the Final SEIR and Scenario 7 is anafyzed in the Response to
comments, Appendix D of the Final SEIR. All scenarios include curb extensions.
15
Scenario 1- Curb Extensions at All Intersections~ 34th/Delaware Limited Access.
This scenario involves curb extensions at every neighborhood intersection. Curb
extensions are designed to improve safety and walkability of the neighborhood by
narrowing intersections and crosswalks, as well as improve the aesthetics of the area
by providing additional landscaping at intersections where possible. It includes no
access restrictions so that it does not redirect traffic from one local street to another.
Scenarios 1 and 2 would also restrict exiting from 34th StreeUDelaware Avenue onto
Centinela Avenue, but would allow entering from Centinela Avenue and two-way traffic
from 34'h Street to Exposition Boulevard. This option would allow vehicles to enter from
either direction but exit only onto Exposition to prevent cars from using this isolated
street to reach Centinela Avenue from Exposition Boulevard.
No significant impacts are anticipated on any of the studied neighborhood street
segments since the effect of the curb extensions would be similar across all streets and
the conversion of 34ih StreeUDelaware Avenue to one-way flow is not expected to shift
significant amounts of traffic to other local streets.
Scenario 2- Curb Extensions; Neighborhood Access from Exposition and
34t"/Delaware Only; 34'"/Delaware Limited Access. This scenario involves closure of
access to/from Virginia Avenue at Stewart Street and at Centinela Avenue, and access
to/from Delaware at Stewart Street. 34th StreeUDelaware Avenue would restrict access
to Centinela Avenue as detailed under Scenario 1.
Significant impacts are expected on Exposition Boulevard and the north-south
segments of Yorkshire Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, and Warwick Avenue between
Exposition Boulevard and Delaware Avenue. Due to the rerouting of traffic.
Specifically, traffic will be routed to atlow accessing the DelawareNirginia area from
Virginia and Delaware Avenues to Yorkshire, Dorchester, and Warwick Avenues via
Exposition Boulevard. Other local street segments, however, show beneficial effects
due to the rerouted traffic. With the closure of Virginia and Delaware Avenues, all the
east-west segments south of Exposition Boulevard showed marked reductions in ADT,
ranging from about 14% to as high as 96%.
Scenario 3- Curb Extensions; No Turns to Warwick from Exposition. This
scenario involves curb extensions at each neighborhood intersection with no turning
movements allowed into Warwick Avenue from Exposition Boulevard.
Scenario 4- Curb Extensions; No Access to Warwick from Exposition. This
scenario is similar to Scenario 3 except that it would involve full closure of Warwick
Avenue at Exposition Boulevard.
Scenario 5- Curb Extensions~ No Access to Dorchester or Warwick from
Exposition. This scenario proposes curb extensions at all neighborhood intersections
with full street closures of Dorchester Avenue at Expositian Boutevard and Warwick
Avenue at Exposition Boulevard.
16
Under Scenarios 3, 4, and 5, traffic rerouted due to turn restrictions at Warwick Avenue
(Scenario 3), closure of Warwick Avenue (Scenario 4), and closures of Warwick and
Dorchester Avenues (Scenario 5) south of Exposition Boulevard would have significant
effects on adjacent streets for each of the respective scenarios. As Table 4.1-13
shows, Dorchester Avenue between Exposition Boulevard and Delaware Avenue for
Scenario 3, portions of Yorkshire, Dorchester, and Delaware Avenues for Scenario 4,
and portions of Yorkshire and Delaware Avenues for Scenario 5 are projected to
experience significant impacts. In addition, the segment of Exposition Boulevard
between the Lantana South driveway and 34th Street is projected to significantly
affected under Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 due to traffic diverted from the north-south streets
directly to Centinela Avenue, this impact is triggered by the City's significance criteria
for local street segments with more than 2,250 ADT, on which any addition of traffic is
considered significant. ~
Scenario 6- Curb Extensions• No Access to Yorkshire Dorchester War~nrick or
34th/Delaware from Exposition. This scenario involves full closure of all north-south
streets that connect Exposition and Virginia Avenue (34th Street, Warwick Avenue,
Dorchester Avenue, and Yorkshire Avenue) at Exposition Boulevard.
As shown in Table 4.1-13, Virginia and Delaware Avenues would have significant
impacts for all the street segments since all local traffic would be routed to access the
DelawareNirginia Area through these two streets. Since the majority of traffic would be
rerouted to other streets, however, ail north-south street segments along Yorkshire
Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, and Warwick Avenue benefit in having decreased traffic
volumes.
Scenario 7- Curb Extensions; No Left Turns from Ex_position Boulevard onto
Warwick, Dorchester, and Yorkshire Avenues. This scenario was submitted by a group
of residents as a comment on the Draft SEIR. This scenario would prohibit left turns
from Exposition Bou~evard onto Warwick, Dorchester, and Yorkshire Avenues through
construction of wedge or crescent-shaped islands at each of the three intersections, and
installation of a sign that restricts cars departing from the IMAX exit to left or right turns
to limit travel into the neighborhood on Dorchester Avenue. Right turns from Exposition
Boulevard onto Warwick, Dorchester, and Yorkshire Avenues and both left and right
turns out from Warwick, Dorchester, and Yorkshire Avenues onto Exposition Boulevard
would continue to be allowed.
All north-south street segments along Yorkshire Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, and
Warwick Avenue would benefit by having decreased traffic volumes under Scenario 7
since a portion of the inbound traffic on these streets would be rerouted to other streets.
Traffic volumes on Virginia Avenue are projected to increase, however, as traffic turning
into the neighborhood from Centinela Avenue via Exposition Boulevard shifts to Virginia
Avenue. Table 5A-4 indicates that increased traffic volumes on Virginia Avenue would
create a significant impact on the segment between Centinela Avenue and Warwick
Avenue. Overall, Scenario 7 would have significant environmental impacts at only one
street segment, less than any of the other neighborhood protection scenarios tested
other than Scenario 1. The geometry of the proposed intersection may need to be
altered to maintain good emergency vehicle response times to all portions of this
17
neighborhood. A design that allows full access to emergency vehicles would also allow
unauthorized access by passenger vehicles.
The following table identifies street segments that would be impacted by each of the
proposed scenarios
Summary of Neighborhood Protection Plan
Intersection Impacts (Table 4.1-9)
Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant
Peak Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor
Intersection Hour Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7
Stewart St & Olympic Blvd AM YES YES YES YES YES NO NO
PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Stewart St & Exposition Blvd AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
2 PM NO YES NO NO NO NO NO
Stewart SU28U St & Pico Blvd AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Centinela Ave (east) & AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
01 mpic Blvd PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Centinela Ave & Exposition AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Blvd (west) [1] PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Worst approach only AM YES YES YES YES YES NO YES
Worst approach onl PM NO YES NO NO NO NO YES
Centinela Ave & I-10 WB AM NO N0 NO NO NO NO NO
ramps PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Centinela Ave & Pico Blvd AM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
PM NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Summarized from Table 11 of the traffic report included in Appendix B of the SEIR.
(1J Intersection controlled by stop signs on the minor approaches.
(2] Intersection controlled by stop signs on all approaches.
Summary of Neighborhood Protection Plan
Street Segment Impacts (from Table 4.1-13)
Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant
Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor Impactfor
Street Segment Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7
Exposition Blvd.
Stewart to Centinela NO YES YES YES YES NO NO
Delaware Ave.
Stewart to Warwick NO NO NO YES YES YES NO
Delawarel34~ Street
Exposition to Centinela NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Virginia Ave.
Stewart to Centinela NO NO NO NO NO YES YES
Yorkshire Ave.
Exposition to Vir inia NO YES NO YES YES NO NO
Dorchester Ave.
Ex osition to Vi inia NO YES YES YES NO NO NO
Warwick Ave
Exposition to Vir inia NO YES NO NO NO NO NO
" Most indicated impacts do not impact the entire street segment. See Table 4.1-13 of the Final SEIR for details.
With low daily traffic volumes such as those shown in the neighborhood streets south of
Exposition Boulevard and the significant impact criteria set by City of Santa Monica, any
small movement or addition of traffic volume may create significant impacts for some of
the street segments. Similarly, however, other street segments within the neighborhood
would experience benefits in decreased traffic volumes from rerouted traffic, as shown
in Table 4.1-13 of the SEIR for the various traffic impact analysis scenarios.
18
Both the proposed Lantana East and South projects may result in short-term effects on
surrounding neighborhoods during the construction period in the areas of air quality,
noise, and truck parking and queuing. These are considered to be significant, but
mitigable. Long-term effects to surrounding residentiat neighborhoods from traffic and
employee parking are considered to be significant. As discussed in the parking section
of the 2002 EIR, providing free employee parking would mitigate impacts that are
related to employees parking in the residential neighborhood. Such mitigation
measures are included in the Development Agreements.
Project Alternatives
Three alternatives to the original project, No Project, Reduced Project Size (reduce floor
area by 33%), and Mixed Use Project (Production studio with artist live/work residential
development) were analyzed in the 2002 EIR. The No Project Alternative would be
environmentally superior to the proposed project on the basis of the minimization or
avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the CEQA Guidelines require
that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, "the EIR
shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives."
In terms of physical effects on the environment, the environmentally superior alternative
(other than the No Project) is the Reduced Project Alternative, which results in a
reduction in adverse impacts with respect to transportation/traffic effects, but like the
current proposal, does not reduce them to a level where they are less than significant.
Statement of Overridinq Considerations
For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the City must find, based
on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or
substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; or b) specific economic, social, or
other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If the City approves a project with
unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of
Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons
supporting the agency's decision
Public benefits derived from the project include: the pubiic benefit package discussed
above, a prominent, well designed project that implements City urban design policies to
create an architecturally distinctive gateway along one of the City's prominent
boulevards; and development of a project that exceeds City Green Building standards
for private projects. With staff recommended amendments to the Development
Agreements, staff supports a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval of the
projects as required by CEQA since the proposed project benefits outweigh the project's
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts which have been reduced by the
15% reduction in the size of Lantana South, and the proposed traffic protection plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
The findings required for approval of a Development Agreement mandate that the
project is consistent with "the objectives, policies, general fand uses, and programs
specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan." Both projects are
consistent with the General Plan and there is no specific plan for the LMSD District.
19
However, the Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan scenarios that incorporate dead-end
streets to prevent traffic from passing through the residential neighborhood immediate
south of Exposition Boulevard are not consistent with the range of Neighborhood Traffic
Control Plan features that are identified in the General Plan Circulation Element.
Staff recommends Scenario 1, which is consistent with the Circulation Element because
it avoids traffic impacts, allows emergency access and trash pick-up, and minimizes
circuitous routs for neighborhood residents. Should the Planning Commission and/or
City Council determine that one of the scenarios that incorporates closures warrants
adoption, the following Circulation Element amendment would be required:
Circulation Element
Incorporate the following additional Neighborhood Traffic Control Plan Strategy into the
Neighborhood Traffic Control Section of the Circulation Element (Page 126):
o Cul-de-sac or dead-end street segment roadway designs to reroute through
traffic. Since these roadway design features have offsetting negative impacts,
they should only be considered after staff completes public outreach, public
disclosure of potential adverse impacts and there is evidence that the affected
neighborhood(s) support implementation. Such measures should not
unreasonable restrict access to emergency vehicles, or other public services,
including, but not limited to trash pick-up.
MUNICIPAL CODE CONFORMANCE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Development Agreement law allows the City Council to modify the LMSD development
standards that would otherwise apply to the project. Except for limited portions of
Lantana East building fa<fade that projects into the Olympic Boulevard setback, both
projects comply with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff supports the 6'
encroachment at the second and third floor levels into the 20' Olympic Boulevard
setback because it allows for a superior architectural design.
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY STATUS
The subject properties are not listed in the City's Historic Resources Inventory.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
The subject site is commercial property exempt from Rent Control.
FEES
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure REC-1, the project shall pay a parks mitigation fee in
the amount of $107,728,25% of which is attributed to Lantana East and 75% of which is
attributable to Lantana South ($26,932 East and $80,797 South). This fee will be
applied to the restroom replacement work at Stewart Park. If approved, the developer
will provide a number of public benefits pursuant to the Development Agreements. The
public benefits are not considered project fees.
20
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The applicant has posted a sign on each property stating the project application
information, name and telephone number of applicant, site address, public hearing
information and City Planning phone number.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.20.14.010 and 9.48.110, notice of the public
hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property
located within a 500 foot radius of the project site. In addition, notice was given to
residents of the neighborhood south of the site, all the City's neighborhood groups and
to other persons interested in the project, at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to
the hearing. The notice was also published in the "California" section of the Los
Angeles Times. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment C.
In conjunction with the Supplemental EIR preparation, a notice of availability of the
DEIR, was sent to all property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius, residents
south of Exposition Boulevard, all the City's neighborhood groups and to other persons
interested in the project. City Staff also held six meetings with residential neighbors to
discuss neighborhood traffic problems and potential protection measures. The applicant
indicates that they have met with the immediate neighbors, numerous neighborhood
groups and Edison School staff.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The building's location on each lot and their setback from the streets, their shape and
overall mass is compatible with adjacent development and land uses. A number of Green
Building standards, including maximizing natural lighting, natural ventilation from
operable windows and permeable paving are proposed. Limited portions of Lantana
East will encroach into the Olympic Boulevard setback; otherwise, both projects comply
with all city Zoning Ordinance regulations and General Plan policies.
However, the project would generate additional traffic and parking impacts that would
adversely impact the neighborhood and area traffic. Traffic impacts cannot be mitigated
to acceptable levels. Traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood located south of
Exposition Boulevard was the focus of concern when the Planning Commission and City
Council considered the prior application. This area currently experiences cut-through
traffic and this project would exacerbate the issue. Two new proposals: 1) the size of
Lantana South reduced by 15%, thereby reducing traffic by 15%, and 2) neighborhood
traffic protection plan improvements proposed to discourage cut-through traffic, would
reduce this problem substantially compared to the project that was considered in 2002.
The proposed Development Agreement would obligate the developer of Lantana East
and Lantana South to: contribute $400,000 to support early childhood development;
replace and upgrade the public restroom building in Stewart Street Park; construct
playground improvements at Edison Elementary School for the City's Playground
Partnership Program; provide $178,000 to fund some of the operating costs associated
with maintenance, custodial needs and monitoring of the above Playground Partnership
21
site; construct sidewalks on Olympic Boulevard and Centinela Avenue between Lantana
East and Exposition Boulevard; contribute $50,000 to support City art programs and
fund the proposed Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan improvements.
Considering the reduction in project size, new neighborhood traffic protection proposal
and public benefits, the overall project benefits outweigh the negative traffic impacts and
staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Agreements if the
Agreements are modified as outlined in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and,
2. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
3. Recommend that the City Council approve both Development Agreements,
including:
. Amendments to the public benefits as recommended in this report;
. The tentative parcel maps;
. Adopt Neighborhood Protection Plan Scenario 1; and
. If an other Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan Scenario is
recommended with dead-end streets, recommendation that the City
Council adopt a resolution amending the Circulation Element.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINDINGS
1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable
specific plan, in that the proposed advanced technology/office project is consistent with
Land Use Element Objective 1 .8.1 which encourages advanced technology and office
uses for the eastern portion of the Olympic Corridor. The project is also consistent with
Urban Design Objectives 3.4 and Urban Design Policies 3.3.15, 3.3.16 and 3.4.9. to
reduce the visibility of surface parking, by requiring that buildings or landscaping form a
specified percentage of the street fa(fade on major arterials.
2. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in the
district in which the real property is located, in that the subject property is located in the
Light Manufacturing Studio District, which allows for the development of the
entertainment production studios.
3. The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, is in
conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good
land use practices, in that it will allow for the construction of two entertainment studios in
the Light Manufacturing Studio District and Special Office District of the General Plan.
22
4. The proposed Development Agreement, as amended, will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare, in that it allows the development of uses that are
consistent with the Special Office District Land Use designation, which allows for
development of entertainment production studios.
5. The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, will
not adversely affect the orderly development of the property, in that the Development
Agreement facilitates the infill construction of two studio buildings that provide advance
technology uses within planned development intensity for the sites.
6. The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, will
have a positive fiscal impact on the City, in that although the project will not result in a
net increase in annual tax revenues such as sales tax, utility tax, and parking tax, the
assessed valuation of the new facility will exceed that of the existing parking lot,
resulting in a net increase in property tax revenues which are expected to exceed the
increase in demand for City services. Therefore, the overall fiscal impact on the City is
positive.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer
Beth Rolandson, Senior Transportation Planner
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A. General Plan Conformance & Municipal Code Comparison- Lantana East
B. General Plan Conformance & Municipal Code Comparison - Lantana South
C. Notice of Public Hearing & Radius and Location Map
D. Proposed Development Agreement - Lantana East
E. Proposed Development Agreement - Lantana South
F. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
G. Copy of Certified Environmental Impact Report
H. Meeting Notes from the Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan Meetings & Diagrams
I. Correspondence
J. Project Photosimulation, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations & Landscape Plans-
Lantana East
K. Project Photosimulation, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations & Landscape Plans -
Lantana South
23
ATTACHMENT A
General Plan Conformance &
Municipal Code Comparison -
Lantana East
Lantana Development Agreement
ATTACHMENT A (Lantana East)
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE & MUNICIPAL CODE COMPARISON
CA TEGORY LAND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
Permitted Use Large floor Entertainment production Entertainment production
area tech &
office related facilities studio
(SMMC 9.04.08.35.020(b)(9) & (10)
Height of Building 45' 45' 37.75' roof
(Policy 1.8.7) (SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(a)(2)) 40.5-44.1' parapetlscreeninQ
Number of Stories 4 stories 3 stories
(SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(a)(2))
FAR N/A 1.0 1.0 FAR
1369.57' x ir233' = 316,196 s.f. 316,011' /316,196' = 0.99
West 53,083
(SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(b)) Center 198,823
East 64,105
Building Height N/A The following are allowed to
Projections project above the height limit:
Parapets & safety rails ~ 42" Below 45' height limit
Elevator shafts ~ 14' r 3.75' above roof
Stair enclosures ~ 14' hi 4.1' above hi (10.6' above roof)
Required building equipment & 3.5'-10.6' above roof.
screening as needed.
(SMMC 9.04.10.02.030)
Setbacks N/A 20' from Olympic Blvd
Front No other setback required Olympic Blvd = 20'
because the project is not
Side adjacent to a residential use. Side (south) = 94.08'
Rear (SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(h)) Rear (east) = 24.6'
Building Volume N/A Any portion of the building 55,787 cf provided
Envelope between 31' & 45' shall
provide 9' average setback.
282 x 9' x 6.75' = 17,132 cf required
(SMMC 9.04.10.02.040)
Parking Access N/A Shall use alley access & No alley access is available.
minimize the size & number of Two driveways on Olympic
curb cuts for access. Boulevard are needed for high
volume to east and west
(SMMC 9.04.10.08.090(a)(1) & (5)) qaraqes.
Parking Space Number N/A Editing/office = 1 sp/300 sJ.
Production = 1 sp/400 sJ. Total provided = 200
E/O 9,616 s.f. /300 = 32 spaces
P 54,489 s.f. /400 = 136 spaces West 166 (34 tandem)
Total Required 168 Center 479 (94 tandem)
East 200 (40 tandem)
West 166 Total 845 For site
Center 479
CA TEGORY LAND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
Required for site 789
(SMMC 9.04.10.08.040)
Compact Parking % N/A A maximum of 40% may be
compact. 223 total
845 x 40% = 338 allowed (26.4%)
(SMMC 9.04.10.10.08)
Tandem N/A Up to 20% of the required
parking spaces may be 168 Total proposed
tandem access with the (19.8%)
approval of a reduced parking
permit.
200 East I
479 Center
166 West
845 total
845 x 20% = 169 spaces
(SMMC 9.04.20.26.030)
Transportation N/A Developments generating >10 Applicant will develop an
Management p.m. peak period VT, or over Emission Reduction Plan &
100,000 s.f. shall develop a obtain City approval prior to
City approved Emission issuance of building permits.
Reduction Plan.
(SMMC 9.16.120)
Bicycle Parking N/A Bicycle parking spaces = 5% 5 spaces
of the required parking spaces. 15 long term spaces
386 x 5% = 19.3 total 20 total provided
50% (10) long term spaces
(SMMC 9.04.10.08.050(a).
Carpool/Vanpool N/A 10% of parking spaces in new
Parking buildings in excess of 50,000 39 vanpool spaces provided
s.f. shall be Car/Vanpool
spaces.
386 x 10%= 38.6 CarNan Pool spaces
(SMMC 9.04.10.08.050(b)
Electric Vehicle N/A One electric recharge space is
Recharge Spaces required (9.16.120 & Green Bldg) 1 space provided
Loading Spaces N/A 40,001 to 80,000 s.f. = 3 sp 3 loading space provided
(SMMC 9.04.10.10.030(e))
Trash Area N/A The EPWM Director shall
determine the size & approve 667 s.f.
the trash/recycling design on (Lantana Center & East)
projects over 40,000 s.f.
(SMMC 9.04.10.02.151 (d)
Mechanical Equipment N/A All mechanical equipment Parapets/walls will screen roof
Screening extending more than 12" top mechanical equipment.
above the roof parapet must
be screened from view.
Total area not to exceed 30% 30% (6.822/22.818)
(SMMC 4.12.150 & 9.04.10.02.140+)
Location of Mechanical N/A Cannot be located on the side There are no adjacent
Equipment of any building which is residential uses. Exterior
adjacent to a residential use equipment will be roof
on the adjoining parcel mounted behind parapet walls.
CATEGORY LAND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
(SMMC 4.12.150 & 9.04.10.02.180).
Landscaping Urban Design 10% of surface parking area 4,264 sq. ft. provided
Policies 3.4.9 (12.8%)
requires 33,250 x 10% = 3,325 sq. ft.
landscape (SMMC 9.04.10.04.070)
setbacks
Special Office District General Plan The visibility of surface parking
Design Standards Policy 1.8.8, is minimized by landscaping,
Urban Design setbacks and locating it in the
Objectives side yard with no parking
3.4 and between the new building and
Urban Design the street.
Policies
3.3.15, 3.3.16 A 5' wide landscape buffer is
and 3.4.9. provides along the street &
Reduce the transportation right-of-way.
visibility of Additional landscaping is
surface parking, provided adjacent to the
by requiring that building. Landscaping in the
buildings or
landscaping form court between the building
a specified wings and IMAX building
percentage of the provides usable open space &
street fa<;:ade on a "campus" environment.
major arterials.
Require
landscaped open
space visible
from the street,
including
landscaped
setbacks from
the street, in
order to create a
"garden office" or
"campus"
environment.
Encourage
usable open
space.
~
ATTACHMENT B
General Plan Conformance &
Municipal Code Comparison -
Lantana South
Lantana Development Agreement
ATTACHMENT B (Lantana South)
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE & MUNICIPAL CODE COMPARISON
CATEGORY LAND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
Permitted Use Large floor Entertainment related facilities Entertainment production
area tech &
office (SMMC 9.04.08.35.020(b)(9) & (10) studio
Height of Building 45' 45' 39.01' roof,
(Policy 1.8.7) (SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(a)(2)) 41.7'-43.1' parapet/screeninQ
Number of Stories 4 stories 2 to 3 stories
(SMMC 9.04.08.35.050(a)(2})
FAR N/A 1.0 1.0 FAR
379.995' x 726' = 275,876.4 s.f. 200,878' / 217,794' = 0.92
ISMMC 9.04.08.35.050Ib))
Building Height N/A The following are allowed to
Projections project above the height limit:
Parapets & safety rails ~ 42" Below 45' height limit
Elevator shafts ~ 14' r 3.3" above roof
Stair enclosures ~ 14' hi 4.8' above hi (10.75' above roof)
Required building equipment & 7.2' above 45' height limit.
screening
ISMMC 9.04.10.02.030)
Building Volume N/A Any portion of the building 326,800 cf provided
Envelope between 31' & 45' shall
provide 9' average setback
from street frontage.
335.8' x 9' x 8' = 24,176 cf
ISMMC 9.04.10.02.040)
Parking Access N/A Shall use alley access & No alley access is available.
minimize the size & number of West driveway is necessary for
curb cuts for access. access to Verizon property.
(SMMC 9.04.10.08.090(a)(1) & (5)) East driveway is needed for
hiQh volume.
Parking Space Number N/A Editing/office = 1 sp/300 sJ.
Production = 1 sp/400 sJ. Total provided = 357
E/O 29,806 sJ. /300 = 99 spaces I MAX 173 (29 tandem)
P 100.194 sJ. /400 = 251 spaces South 357 154 tandem)
total required 350 For site 530
Existing buildina = 173 spaces
Total spaces required = 523
ISMMC 9.04.10.08.040)
Compact Parking % N/A A maximum of 40% may be
compact. 182 proposed
665 x 40% = 266 allowed (28%)
ISMMC 9.04.10.10.08)
I Tandem N/A Up to 20% of the required
II parking spaces may be 57 tandem spaces proposed
tandem access with the (8.5%)
approval of a Reduced ParkinQ
CA TEGORY LAND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
Permit.
585 x 20% = 117 spaces
(SMMC 9.04.20.26.030)
Transportation N/A Developments generating >10 Applicant will develop an
Management p.m. peak period VT, or over Emission Reduction Plan &
100,000 sJ. shall develop a obtain City approval prior to
City approved Emission issuance of building permits.
Reduction Plan.
(SMMC 9.16.120)
Bicycle Parking N/A Bicycle parking spaces =5% 9 spaces
of the required parking spaces. 9 long term spaces
357 x 5% = 18 total 18 total
50% (9) long term spaces
(SMMC 9.04.10.08.050(a).
Carpool/Vanpool N/A 10% of parking spaces in new
Parking buildings >50,000 sJ. shall be 35 vanpool spaces
designated Car/Vanpool
spaces.
350 x 10%= 35 CarNan Pool sp
(SMMC 9.04.10.08.050(b)
Electric Vehicle N/A One electric recharge space is
Recharge Spaces required 1 space
(SMMC 9.16.120 & Green Bldg)
Loading Spaces N/A 120,001 to 160,000 sJ. = 5 sp 5 loading space
(SMMC 9.04.10.10.030(e))
Trash Area N/A The EPWM Director shall
determine the size & approve 1,140sJ.
the trash/recycling design on
projects over 40,000 sJ.
(SMMC 9.04.1 0.02.151(d)
Mechanical Equipment N/A All mechanical equipment Parapets/walls will screen roof
Screening extending more than 12" top mechanical equipment.
above the roof parapet must
be screened from view.
Total area not to exceed 30% 19% (8,937/47,154)
(SMMC 4.12.150)
Location of Mechanical N/A Cannot be located on the side There are no adjacent
Equipment of any building which is residential uses. Exterior
adjacent to a residential use equipment will be roof
on the adjoining parcel mounted behind parapet walls.
(SMMC 4.12.150 & 9.04.10.02.180).
Landscaping Urban Design 10% of surface parking area. 6,011 sq. ft. (34%)
Policies 3.4.9 17,800 x 10% = 1,780 sq. ft.
requires
landscape
setbacks (SMMC 9.04.10.04.070)
Special Office District General Plan The visibility of surface parking
Design Standards Policy 1.8.8, is minimized by landscaping,
Urban Design setbacks and locating it in the
Objectives side yard with no parking
3.4 and between the new buildinQ and
CATEGORY LAND USE MUNICIPAL CODE PROJECT
ELEMENT
Urban Design the street.
Policies
3.3.15, 3.3.16 A 5' wide landscape buffer is
and 3.4.9. provides along the street &
Reduce the transportation right-of-way.
visibility of Additional landscaping is
surface parking, provided adjacent to the
by requiring that building. Landscaping in the
buildings or
landscaping form court between the building
a specified wings and IMAX building
percentage of the provides usable open space &
street fa9ade on a "campus" environment.
major arterials.
Require
landscaped open
space visible
from the street,
including
landscaped
setbacks from
the street, in
order to create a
"garden office" or
"campus"
environment.
Encourage
usable open
space.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
Commissioner Pugh asked for two corrections on page 8. Chair Clarke asked for
verification and review of the Commission's motion regarding the use of "A" and "R"
lots for structure parking.
Action: Continued.
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
7 -A. Development Agreement 03-001, General Plan Amendment 04-001, Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 00-002 and Consideration of a
Statement of Overriding Considerations; 3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana
East) and 3131 Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South). Recommendation to the
City Council reqardinq two Development Aqreements, two Tentative Parcel Maps, a
General Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and
Statement of Overridinq Consideration to allow the construction of two new three-
story entertainment studio buildinqs with subterranean parkinq qaraqes. Lantana
East, located at 3030 Olympic Boulevard would contain 64,105 square feet of floor
area and provide 200 additional parkinq spaces. Lantana South, located at 3131
Exposition Boulevard would contain 130,000 square feet of floor area and provide 364
additional parkinq spaces. Tentative Parcel Maps 060785 (Lantana East) and
060786 (Lantana South) would allow individual ownership of each buildinq with the
land and parkinq held in common ownership. The City Council will also be
considerinq a number of neiqhborhood traffic protection plan improvements includinq
curb extensions, dead-end streets and turn restrictions. Amendment of the General
Plan Circulation Element would be necessary if the City Council approves dead-end
streets in the residential neiqhborhood adiacent to Lantana South to discouraqe cut-
throuqh traffic. The Development Aqreements propose a number of public benefits
includinq the construction of restroom improvements at Stewart Park, office/restroom
and playqround equipment at Edison School for the City's Playqround Partnership
recreation proqram, new sidewalks on Olympic Boulevard and Centinela Avenue,
and fundinq for the City's childcare and arts proqrams. rPlanner: Bruce Leachl
APPLlCANTI PROPERTY OWNER: Lantana-Hines Development, LLC.
The staff report was given by Associate Planner Bruce Leach and Lucy Dyke,
Transportation Planning Manager.
Commissioner Hopkins complimented staff on their excellent presentation. She
asked staff to explain the different childcare benefit options cited in the
Development Agreement especially since the developer already donates to the
childcare fund. Mr. Leach stated that the figure cited in the Development Agreement
is the amount proposed by the Developer. However, based on the size and impacts
of the project, and since this is not a standard development permit, staff
recommends a $925,000 fee. Ms. Frick stated that the City's Childcare Task Force
asked the City Council for a nexus fee in Santa Monica for all new developments
and the initial analysis has been prepared regarding funding. The analysis revealed
that Santa Monica has higher requirements than other comparable cities and that
3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
this is consistent for Santa Monica childcare, hence the $925,000 versus $400,000
figures proposed by the Developer.
Commissioner Hopkins asked if the nexus study cost if based on square footage.
Ms. Frick answered in the affirmative and stated the fee is $5.00 per square foot.
Commissioner Hopkins asked staff to explain the costs associated with the
improvements for Stewart Park and Edison School. Mr. Leach stated that the
Developer's proposal asks for the Lantana-South development only to pay for the
improvements to these facilities prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Staff is of the opinion that the two facilities should receive the benefit sooner and
that this will also benefit the Lantana employees who use the park as well as the
neighborhood, therefore these benefit should be tied to whichever development is
finished first. Ms. Frick stated that, as proposed, Lantana-South is obligated.
Accordingly, if only Lantana-East is built, they are not obligated to furnish this
benefit.
Commissioner Brown asked staff about the collecting of the Childcare fees, whether
they go into the General Fund or a special fund. Mr. Leach explained that the fees
are deposited in a special fund under the Community and Cultural Services
Department and aid will cover the cost of full scholarships for up to 20 children per
year.
Commissioner Johnson commented that this is a serious project involving millions of
dollars and hundreds of employees. He asked staff for the approximate population
of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Ms. Frick responded that staff will need to
gather than information and return with an answer later.
Commissioner Johnson complimented staff on their presentation and time spent on
this application. He then asked about traffic issues, specifically the date the traffic
counts were done. Mr. Leach stated that the Supplement Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) includes new traffic data and is based on the reduced project size.
The City's traffic consultant for this project, Tom Gaul of Kaku Associates, stated
that the intersection counts for the Certified FEIR were done in November 2002,
while the SEIR traffic counts were done in early 2004 and include impact analysis
for the reduced project proposal.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Gaul if the analysis includes the estimated 2700
vehicle trips a day that will be generated by the recently approved New Roads
School project. Mr. Gaul answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson asked
where he would find this information in the SEIR. Mr. Gaul stated the raw data was
not included in the SEIR, but the new data was used in the analysis.
Commissioner Johnson commented on a proposal to erect a bridge over the MT A
right-of-way, which staff stated would be impractical due to the length of ramps
needed for accessibility and that height would exceed what is permitted in the Code.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
He asked if there had been consideration of an underpass. Mr. Leach stated that
the underpass idea was reviewed in the original EIR, however the subterranean
garages are not adjacent and it is unlikely the MT A would permit a diagonal tunnel
under their property for a private project.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the proposed rooftop satellite dishes and
whether the parapets will fully screen the dishes. Mr. Leach stated that the parapets
will adequately screen the dishes despite the perspective shown on the graphics.
Ms. Frick suggested that the Commission may wish to consider adding a condition
to guarantee the screening of the satellite dishes from street view.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff how car trips can be reduced for this project to
mitigate traffic impacts. Mr. Leach stated that the project has been reduced by 33%
and the 2002 EIR evaluated a scenario identifying the same intersections and
streets. Mr. Leach explained that the impacts would be reduced, but any meaningful
size project would have significant impacts because of existing traffic volume and
the City's significance criteria.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if community meetings rooms were considered
for the project. Ms. Frick stated that this has been discussed, however past practice
has shown that this is not a successful amenity and is difficult to monitor.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the proposed waiver of all City fees to off-
set the public benefits (page 10 of the Development Agreement). Mr. Leach
explained that the waiver of fees is only for work associated with the public benefits
such as the sidewalks, bathroom for the Stewart Park and Edison School
improvements.
Commissioner Pugh commented on the traffic study and the developer's claim that
the study did not reflect the actual use of the proposed buildings. Mr. Leach stated
that the traffic study used the traditional office use analysis for the project, which is
expected to show higher generation than will be the actual case for the pre/post
production work to be done in Lantana-East and Lantana-South. He further stated
that the ITE Manual does not have an entertainment use category, there for office
use was used for the analysis. He also stated that this is a conservative approach.
Mr. Gaul explained the trip generation figures as follows: the FEIR estimated total
new vehicles trips is 290 a.m. peak hour trips and 240 p.m. peak while the reduced
project (SEIR) was analyzed to produce a total of 260 a.m. peak and 220 p.m. peak.
He further stated that actual driveway counts done for the SEIR indicate 25% to
45% less peak hour trips.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Gaul how many new vehicles trips were estimated
for New Roads School. Mr. Gaul stated the figure is less than 1800 vehicles trips for
New Roads School. Commissioner Pugh stated that it appears the Lantana projects
will generate far less new traffic than New Roads School. Mr. Gaul agreed.
c;
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
Commissioner Johnson asked staff about the two favored traffic mitigation plans (#1
and #7) and the approximately population of the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Mr. Leach stated that there approximately 400 residential units total, 108 mobile
homes and 300 single family homes and apartment units. Ms. Dyke stated that
there is no compelling reason not to go with the neighborhood Option #7 as long as
emergency vehicles can access the area and traffic is not negatively shifted to other
residential areas. She stated that staff is more comfortable with Option #1. Ms. Frick
commented that neighborhood protection plans go through a lengthy process with
review by neighbors and staff prior to coming before the Commission. She stated
she does not know what sort of process Option #7 went through as it was not part of
the rest of the Options presented in the draft SEIR.
[Note: Commissioner O'Day arrived at 8:55 p.m.]
Chair Clarke asked staff about southbound traffic routes that use Stewart/Twenty-
Eighth Streets and Pico Boulevard. Mr. Leach commented on traffic patterns south
of the Santa Monica Freeway (1-10), but noted that the reduced project does not
significantly impact these areas.
Chair Clarke asked about the estimated number of vehicle trips for the proposed
projects. Ms. Dyke stated that it has been estimated that 80 vehicles trips travel
through Sunset Park to and from the project site in a twenty-four hour period. She
also stated that Sunset Park already has a Neighborhood Traffic Plan, and
additional plans are not proposed.
The applicant's team consisted of Doug Holte, representing Hines-Lantana; project
architect, Steven Ehrlich; landscape architect, Pamela Burton; and Dale Goldsmith,
the applicant's attorney.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the traffic count analysis being based on
classic office use and standard office hours. He noted that, in his experience,
creative, entertainment type uses do not occur during normal business hours, and
this should be considered. Mr. Holte agreed and stated that the Lantana campus is
the premiere pre- and post-production venue for eight major motion picture studios
and HBO productions. He also stated that the work schedules forthe employees are
just a likely to be from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. as standard business hours. Mr. Holte
explained that Lantana offers approximately 300 rooms in a flexible and fluid
arrangement for the entertainment uses and many offices are leased for up to nine
month, but only actually utilized for three months. Additionally, Mr. Holte stated that
management has video taped traffic use patterns at the Lantana campus in order to
understand the use patterns of the site.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Holte if the video taped information was included
as part of the traffic analysis. Mr. Holte answered in the negative and stated that the
traffic analysis was done using the conservative approach of "standard office use."
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Holte if his experience indicates there will be less
6
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14,2004
traffic than the analysis reports. Mr. Holte stated that his analysis indicates there will
be approximately 25% to 45% less traffic than indicated in the SEIR.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Holte which Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan
(Option #1 or Option #7) he supports. Mr. Holte stated that he and his staff have
been listening to the neighborhood since 2002 and have worked closely with them
in developing the various options. He stated that most involved neighbors
developed Option #7, which address the concerns of cut-through traffic on the
eastern edge of the neighborhood (Warwick Street to Centinela Avenue). He
commented that he knows these neighbors do not want to be sealed off and a
"good faith" exchange has been made.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the idea of providing a community room on-
site. Mr. Holte stated that Lantana has given space for meetings to the local the Girl
Scouts and other groups in the original building, however he was not asked for
dedicated space. He also stated that space may be available in two of the three
existing buildings, if needed.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Holte to repeat his belief that there will be less
traffic than indicated in the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Holte stated that his
experience is that less traffic is generated during peak hours than indicated in the
. EIR traffic analysis. Mr. Holte also stated that generally people working irregular
hours want to get home the quickest way possible, which generally means getting to
the Santa Monica Freeway via Centinela Avenue.
The applicant's architect, Steven Ehrlich, and landscape architect, Pamela Burton,
were given five minutes to make a presentation of their design plans.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Ehrlich about the color choices for the building.
He commented that he would expect bright colors for an entertainment industry use,
not mid-gray tones. Mr. Ehrlich commented that Sony Entertainment's building is
beige and Warner Brothers is gray. He stated that the preference was for a
sophisticated design. Commissioner Johnson asked about the burnished steel
material. Mr. Ehrlich stated the copper elements are a burnt sienna color, however
the glass is more prominent. Commissioner Johnson asked about the proposed trim
color. Mr. Ehrlich stated that it will be aluminum or silver anodized.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Ehrlich about screening the satellite dishes from
street view. Mr. Ehrlich stated that the parapets are ten and one half feet from the
roof line and dishes are getting smaller with new technology. He expressed the
opinion that the dish height will not be visible from the street as they will be setback
as much as possible.
Chair Clarke commented on the proposed sidewalk on Olympic Boulevard and
asked if an "experience" will be created. Ms. Burton stated that there will be a buffer
from traffic, a berm with plantings and street trees as well as plantings south of the
7
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
sidewalk.
Chair Clarke declared it was time for a break. The Commission briefly discussed
when to hold the Election of Officers and what effective date to choose.
[The Commission took a break from 9:48 p.m. to 10: 1 0 p.m. Election of Officer was
held, the public hearing resumed at 10:15 p.m.]
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Jennifer
Polhemus, Irene Zivi, Zina Josephs, Betsy Hiteshew, Mitchell Block (also spoke for
Susan Fraser), Linda Sullivan, Ana Maria Jara, Maria Loya, Eric Parlee, Cathleen
Couchois, and Irma Carranza.
One member of the public, Grace Phillips, submitted a request to speak form, but
was not present when her name was called.
The applicant's team, Doug Holte and David Jordan, spoke in response to the public
comments.
Commissioner Dad commented that the childcare funding in the Development
Agreement is not being specified to whom it goes and the requests for benefits
received from the Pico Neighborhood Association's (PNA) is very specific. She
commented that it does not seem appropriate to cite this in the Development
Agreement. She also commented on establishing a mentoring program for young
people as proposed by PNA, which makes sense considering the tenants occupying
the Lantana campus. Mr. Holte stated that his staff is very enthusiastic about
mentoring and has already established career development visits to Lantana with
St. Anne's Catholic Church. He also stated that scholarships already exist for youth
at Lantana. Commissioner Dad suggested that such a mentoring program could be
folded into the Development Agreement without specificity.
Commissioner O'Day commented that he has observed the work Lantana has done
with job fairs at St. Anne's. He asked Mr. Holte what alternative uses would occur on
the sites in question if this proposal is denied. Mr. Holte stated that the site could
returned to a "production trucking" uses, which involves many vehicles trips at very
early and late hours, as well as such commercial uses as automobile repair.
Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum explained the concept of nexus in terms of
Development Agreements versus other development permits. He stated that the
City looks at applications for land use and imposes reasonable fees to offset public
impact of that use to the City. For a Development Agreement, the City can impose
more fees as this is a contract rather than a permit approval, however the benefit
needs to have some type of nexus to the project. He further stated that the City's
Childcare Nexus study was not cited in the Development Agreements because it
8
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
has not been approved yet. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented
that, based on a cursory review, the more significant PNA proposals show no clear
connection, however Lantana and PNA can enter into separate negotiations that are
not linked to the Development Agreement.
Chair Clarke offered the Commission three options: to call it a night; to complete the
deliberations; or give staff specifics requests that will return next week.
Commissioner Pugh asked to question the traffic engineer hired by the
neighborhood group and financed by Lantana.
Chair Clarke stated that there is consensus to move this Development Agreement
forward.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Fleener to speak to Option 7 as presented by the
neighbors this evening. Dick Fleener began his comments by saying that this
process is the best he has seen between a developer and a neighborhood. He then
commented on the proposal for "pinched" intersections, which he called a nebulous
solution. He stated that traffic control is an art, not a science, and that "traffic
calming" is not reflected in or part of basic traffic studies. He also stated that it is
certain that some residential streets will be impacted by Lantana's proposal if
mitigation measures are not installed. He concluded by saying that Option 7 does
not barricade the residential streets, but prevents left turns from the project site into
the residential streets.
Commissioner Pugh suggested that staff's Option 1 be adopted with a bond posted
by the applicant, then revisit the issue after the project is built to see if cut-through
traffic is actually a problem. If there is no problem, the bond can be returned to the
applicant. Commissioner Pugh commented on the "test, then build" idea, then asked
Mr. Fleener of his opinion regarding the bond idea. Mr. Fleener stated that the
neighborhood would react negatively to this idea as they already perceive a problem
with cut-through traffic.
Commissioner Hopkins asked Mr. Fleener how many meetings were held and how
many scenarios were discussed prior to Option #7. Mr. Fleener stated that the
neighborhood meetings began approximately eighteen months ago and included
both large and small gatherings, telephone calls and e-mails on a continuous basis.
He stated that many, many scenarios were discussed and it was an educational
process for the residents. He further stated that Option #7 came about in May 2004,
after the final traffic figures were released and following an explanation of the "real"
impact of scenarios #1 - #6. He concluded by saying the Option #7 is a hybrid that
resulted after much debate.
Commissioner Brown asked if there consideration that Option #7 might redirect
traffic into Sunset Park. Mr. Fleener stated that his charge was to protect the
"Lantana South" neighborhood. He also expressed the presumption that traffic will
9
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
go down Centinela Avenue as the fastest way to access the Santa Monica Freeway
(1-10).
Chair Clarke commented on an apparent overlap with Option #7 and staff's
recommendation. He asked Mr. Fleener to comment on the difference. Mr. Fleener
stated that the four changes effect Warwick Avenue, Dorchester Avenue, Yorkshire
Avenue at Exposition Boulevard as well as calling for V-shaped diverters at Virginia
and Centinela Avenues as well as "pinch" diverters at intersections.
Chair Clarke asked if Option #7 is chosen, will the diverters be painted on the
pavement or bollards or some other method. Mr. Fleener discussed the options and
stated that emergency vehicles prefer painted stripes on the pavement.
Chair Clarke closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dad asked staff what happens if the Development Agreement is
approved and the project site is sold. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated
that the purchaser takes on all the obligations in the Development Agreement. He
also stated that "side agreements" between the developer and parties other than the
City are not part of the Development Agreement
Commissioner Pugh asked staff how specific the recommendation to the City
Council should be. Ms. Frick stated that it can be as specific as the Commission
wants with issue details being "flushed out" between the Commission hearing and
City Council hearing. Commissioner Pugh expressed the desire to make
recommendations and move this along now.
Chair Clarke asked staff about endorsing Option #7 and what staff would need to
do. Ms. Frick stated that it should be noted that the Fire Department has not
evaluated Option #7 and not all the neighbors are aware of this option, so another
neighborhood meeting would be recommended.
Chair Clarke asked about staff's recommendation to the neighborhood. Ms. Frick
stated that Options #1- #6 were part of the neighborhood meetings. She stated that
the neighborhood needs full disclosure on these issues. She suggested that if the
Commission is leaning toward recommending Option #7, then she would
recommended the Commission's support include notification to the neighborhood
regarding Option #7 with results to be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner
O'Day asked if this would require another mailing. Ms. Frick stated that a mailing is
part of full disclosure.
Commissioner Dad announced that she cannot vote on the Development
Agreement this evening and that this item be continued for further consideration.
Commissioner Johnson expressed agreement and stated he had six points to make
about the Development Agreement.
10
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
Ms. Frick informed the Commission that Development Agreements are unique in
that the recommendation must be forwarded to a City Council hearing 30 days after
the Commission's public hearing. She stated that this item is already scheduled as a
continued item for next week's hearing (July 21,2004).
Chair Clarke commented that there appears to be general agreement that the
Development Agreement should be approved. He asked the Commission to offer
any changes or requests for information regarding traffic mitigation and benefits.
Commissioner Dad announced she is leaving. It was 12:15 a.m.
Commissioner Johnson made the following requests:
· That the public benefit improvements (for Stewart Park and Edison Elementary
School) not be tied to one project, but are to be completed when whichever
project is completed first;
. That the proposed satellite dishes not be visible over the parapets from the
street;
. That a community room be provided for "convenient use" with the cooperation
of the developer;
. That there is confusion regarding the size of the benefits package, which
Commissioner Johnson feels should be larger or on-going rather than to be
paid off in five years;
. That traffic mitigation Option #7 be adopted in principle; and
. That the PNA benefits proposal be reviewed for viability.
Commissioner Hopkins expressed "whole-hearted" support for Option #7. She
stated she is very impressed by the developer for hiring the traffic consultant to work
with the neighborhood. She also stated that she sees very little difference between
Option #1 (recommended by staff) and Option #7. She also asked that this item be
heard before Garden of Angels on July 21,2004.
Commissioner 0' Day expressed agreement with Commissioner Hopkins. He stated
that this has been an extraordinary effort. He then stated his concern with
Commissioner Johnson's point about the benefits package and how long the
financial commitment should be. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern that
five years was a short period of time and there is the potential for lack of
maintenance after five years.
City Council Liaison McKeown observed that if the Commission is requesting new
information, they are obligated to reopen the public hearing at their next hearing.
Commissioner Brown commented that it was Commissioner Dad's understanding
that there would not be a vote on this matter this evening.
Commissioner Pugh commended the developer for their neighborhood outreach,
11
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 2004
which will be the "gold standard" for future developers. He responded to comments
made by Commissioner Johnson regarding the nexus amount and how this would
be determined. He also stated that the largest antenna dishes would be setback to
the center of the building and would be out of the line-of-sight of the street. He
concluded his remarks by commenting on the traffic mitigation proposal and saying
he is unsure about fixing what may not be a problem.
Commissioner Hopkins stated she would argue against Commissioner Pugh's
proposal of a bond for the traffic mitigation measures. She stated that the
Commission has a long tradition to encourage cooperation between developers and
residents and the Commission should stand behind the efforts made by this
developer and the neighbors. She also stated that large developments usually
require traffic mitigation measures as part of their approval. Commissioner Pugh
responded that the point is well taken.
Chair Clarke asked the Commission whether the issue should be continued with
staff to report back at the next meeting or vote now. Commissioner Pugh stated he
will not be present at the next hearing. The Commission discussed their options.
Commissioner Hopkins made a motion to continue this item to the next meeting and
that it be the first hearing item on the agenda, and that staff return with what
information they can and that other information requested by the Commission will be
included in the City Council's staff report.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
Ms. Frick stated that revised language for the Development Agreement may not be
available by next week, although other items can be accomplished by that date. She
also stated that the review of Option #7 will not be completed, nor review of the PNA
proposal.
The developer, Mr. Holte, stated that he can meet with whomever is necessary, but
would like to be able to keep the City Council meeting date in September.
The vote to continue this item was approved by voice vote.
Action: Public hearing held; deliberations continued to July 21, 2004.
8. FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
9. PUBLIC INPUT: None.
10. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:43 a.m. on Thursday, July 15,
2004.
APPROVED: September 1, 2004
1 ')
ATTACHMENT B
JULY 21, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PCD:AS:J L: BL:f:\plan\share\pc\stfrpt\03\03devOO 1 Su pp
Planning Commission Meeting: July 21,2004
Santa Monica, California
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning and Community Development Department Staff
SUBJECT: Development Agreement 03-001, General Plan Amendment 04-001;
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 00-002
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Address: 3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East)
3131 Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South)
Applicant: Lantana-Hines Development, LLC
INTRODUCTION
This supplemental report responds to the Planning Commission's request for
clarification pertaining to forwarding the following proposed recommendations to the
City Council:
1. That the public improvements to Stewart Park and Edison School playground
that are only required of Lantana South, also be required of Lantana East, so the
improvements would be provided if either project is constructed.
To include this recommendation, the Planning Commission can specify that the
Milestones contained in Section 5.5.5 of the Lantana East Development Agreement
include the same requirements for recreation improvements to Stewart Park and Edison
School as required of Lantana South. This change would ensure that these benefits are
provide"d if either project is developed.
2. That the Development Agreement should specify that any satellite dishes be
screened so they will not be visible from adjacent streets.
To address this concern, the Planning Commission can recommend that both
Development Agreements require the installation of dish antennas be located behind
the building's screen enclosures so they are not visible from adjacent streets.
3. That a community room be provided if space is available in one of the buildings.
To include this provision, the Planning Commission can specify: "To the extent that
Developer determines that there is conference room space available in the Project (or
another building in the immediate vicinity of the Project owned or controlled by
Developer), Developer shall make such space available at no cost for use by
community organizations from time to time. Developer shall have the right to impose
reasonable conditions on the use of such space, including but not limited to requiring
reasonable advance notice, limiting occupancy and/or duration of use, and keeping the
space clean. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Developer shall
not be deemed to be in default hereunder if Developer fails to provide such space."
4. That childcare should be increased to $925,000, but the annual payments could
be extended over a longer period of time.
To increase the childcare benefit, the Planning Commission can include the $925,000
amount in the motion. The Commission can also recommend a longer term, such as
eight or ten years. While the proposed agreements require the developer to make
annual payments over a five year term, this money would be kept in a separate fund
and the City would have flexibility to adjust funding levels to extend the life of the benefit
beyond five years.
5. That Neighborhood Traffic Protection Scenario 7 be recommended provided the
intersections can be designed so public safety is not compromised.
To include this recommendation, the Planning Commission can recommend the City
Council adopt Neighborhood Traffic Protection Scenario 7, provided the intersection
improvements to restrict left turns from Exposition Boulevard into the residential
neighborhood would not compromise public safety. If the Commission recommends this
scenario, Fire Department and Planning and Community Development staff will test
intersection designs prior to the City Council meeting.
6. That the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) benefit proposal be reviewed for
viability.
The majority of the proposal outlined by PNA would more appropriately be handled in
negotiations between community representatives and Lantana since these benefits may
not be the type of benefits that the City should negotiate as part of the Development
Agreement. The proposed advisory committee is not necessary and is problematic
since the City is required to monitor and enforce development agreements for
compliance. Staff supports giving Pico Neighborhood residents preference to the
childcare program.
7. Provide the methodology used for the pending Childcare Nexus study.
The pending Childcare Nexus Study:
. Assembled and analyzed information to determine how commercial and
residential development impacts the need for childcare;
. Analyzed and quantified the impact;
. Determined the costs to develop new facilities to accommodate the
impacts; and
. Recommends an appropriate mitigation fee.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and,
2. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
3. Recommend that the City Council approve both Development Agreements,
including:
. Amendments to the public benefits;
. Amendment of the Development Agreements contained in this report;
. The tentative parcel maps;
. Adopt Neighborhood Protection Plan Scenario 1, or 7; and
. Not recommend amending the Circulation Element.
4. Adopt the following findings:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINDINGS
1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable
specific plan, in that the proposed advanced technologyloffice project is consistent with
Land Use Element Objective 1.8.1 which encourages advanced technology and office
uses for the eastern portion of the Olympic Corridor. The project is also consistent with
Urban Design Objectives 3.4 and Urban Design Policies 3.3.15, 3.3.16 and 3.4.9. to
reduce the visibility of surface parking, by requiring that buildings or landscaping form a
specified percentage of the street fac;ade on major arterials.
2. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in the
district in which the real property is located, in that the subject property is located in the
Light Manufacturing Studio District, which allows for the development of the
entertainment production studios.
3. The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, is in
conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good
land use practices, in that it will allow for the construction of two entertainment studios in
the Light Manufacturing Studio District and Special Office District of the General Plan.
4. The proposed Development Agreement, as amended, will not be detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare, in that it allows the development of uses that are
consistent with the Special Office District Land Use designation, which allows for
development of entertainment production studios.
5. The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, will
not adversely affect the orderly development of the property, in that the Development
Agreement facilitates the infill construction of two studio buildings that provide advance
technology uses within planned development intensity for the sites.
6. The proposed Development Agreement, with staff recommended amendments, will
have a positive fiscal impact on the City, in that although the project will not result in a
net increase in annual tax revenues such as sales tax, utility tax, and parking tax, the
assessed valuation of the new facility will exceed that of the existing parking lot,
resulting in a net increase in property tax revenues which are expected to exceed the
increase in demand for City services. Therefore, the overall fiscal impact on the City is
positive.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Beth Rolandson, Senior Transportation Planner
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENT C
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING & RADIUS AND LOCATION MAP
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
Development Agreement 03-001, General Plan Amendment 04-001,
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 00-002
3030 Olympic Boulevard (Lantana East)
3131 Exposition Boulevard (Lantana South)
APPLICANT: Lantana-Hines Development, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: Lantana-Hines Development, LLC
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Approval of two Development Agreements, two Tentative Parcel Maps, a General Plan Amendment, Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Consideration to allow the
construction of two new three-story entertainment studio buildings with subterranean parking garages.
Lantana East, located at 3030 Olympic Boulevard would contain 64,105 square feet of floor area and
provide 200 additional parking spaces. Lantana South, located at 3131 Exposition Boulevard would contain
130,000 square feet of floor area and provide 364 additional parking spaces. Tentative Parcel Maps 060785
(Lantana East) and 060786 (Lantana South) would allow individual ownership of each building with the land
and parking held in common ownership. The City Council will also be considering a number of neighborhood
traffic protection plan improvements including curb extensions, dead-end streets and turn restrictions.
Amendment of the General Plan Circulation Element would be necessary if the City Council approves dead-
end streets in the residential neighborhood adjacent to Lantana South to discourage cut-through traffic. The
Development Agreements propose a number of public benefits including the construction of restroom
improvements at Stewart Park, office/restroom and playground equipment at Edison School for the City's
Playground Partnership recreation program, new sidewalks on Olympic Boulevard and Centinela Avenue,
and funding for the City's childcare and arts programs
DATEITIME: TUESDAY, September 14, 2004, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to:
City Clerk
Re: Lantana DEV 03-001
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Associate
Planner Bruce Leach at (310) 458-8341, or bye-mail at bruce-Ieach@santa-monica.org. The Zoning
Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site at
www.santa-monica.orQ.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
ESPANOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publica para revisar applicaci6nes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas mas informaci6n, favor de lIamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Divisi6n de Planificaci6n
al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~\Q ~
o A THAN LAIT
Acting Principal Planner
f:\plan\share\cc\notices\03\03DEV 001 Lantana notice
"
ill
'"
~
"
"
I
\
~ ' \ I
)...
I,
~.
'i,
,.,-
it'~ 11
X : .",
'~; ',,:
I"
I j.: ;
,
,
.'_ I
::;,1, '
1',
:( I~.
i
~j
)
'if I
I I
il I
f:i/
J l
1'1
I
I ~&:2'
I @ <-=;;
I@
I
'-#f
~,I z
,/e
1.'/
,.,/.,
.,../
'. ;;
:~
"
./
!i
tJ
,1
~, - - - - =- :..:: ::;- -= {- ~ .t+.~L
~
"'"
HJIIM31S
~
o
'"
=i
i3
%
''.
4
/-1'to ~
. . :it 01
. /:~;'~ " ; -;;ii'"
.- .....al 9li: ~OQi~-
. --.,-- t; ",
/,,~'.' il,:.: ,~9.6 __
"lZ ..-.,--::; - .,.
<"'", . - '~fl.'" .g..~.
,..gi :~I' Cll,. :J:fi3, r ...' .0t\Cl:l
S.l~' "=:-'- W
. I l;~:'''''il. ,"~., -
, 1(1 -z. ;--.,; if; ;;;.~~.-
· ".zi'.'~, ~,.~...-
; -;~lll--.' ~.-:'o~ t; .; a i'" ...
---&;.- ~--aoi.. ---.. _.~o
3~1I15.UO), ~
l/l
(,:}
';:..1
'C.
e'
~
I
I
I
L
I!
"
I
0 I
!:<
~
n
:-0
,
'" ~<"
-t> l~
t::r
'\
~ \\~ . '.'
" , \
, ~
.:
l
):
<!
i::
I~
'"
i;;
C'\
:;,
~
l"'I
~, J.
:J:.
, '''~i1' ·
, >l~~t~
, Ii.I f.V-
-or
;t ((I ct1~
~.. ~~ i;,
, ~~:~:
,~ c;:;l\:. E3;
'-'~)!.I 0
~.~ -- ,
.. Y:l~.'" ltll~';
-cr:- ,"--.
11.9': ,'~!C.
.;;;-~ ' ;":r.";
",v'~; ;",;;,
Hl~~ ~ . ~; -",i :
.----10. .
~72:
."
~. ~
~
...
.,
.,,-' ~
.._~ 6 ~~.
"~. 'f'.~~" f:D
._~ '"n';W
~r.~.~~._,..~
4: l'li .; ~ lZ"
~ ,. . -iii."
~ h -b
u,""
1'1
.. '-.'
4... U,.
'01 :,' ~~;J
um~llJU 8~'i
U"
(IJJ"-.~'D
I~-.""!"'''''''''''I'
I'.I"',.,.''*'
"'_.'l~'rJ"'~{.
f,....t':;'
'.....;:
v.
'iI-_-;'.6":.'"~:i-~z~'4,U ioi~~..
- ...,~....
...:.....,....~....
.~ y
~&
~\.
'~'...i'.-;--J.y.t i"'..' i-' ;~:{.'.
lu.u
"...""
, .,,~~
I.'"
. -....;.- -
[..
~
V
./'
81:'
~
\\~
~ \,'
'.-
":"
.,~
.
z
.,
n
~
'.
<:-:
0;-:
);:..
. l
it 1/1 ~ cl
~ ~': ~
; ~A ~
.~ ~ ~ '
~ ~
,..;.;
V'l'1'''IIN'11
oi
,-\1:.0:'",
o
~
ill
,,.
,""
, .
,"
'fl:'
.1'1'
.~..",
~ l
..
\
I,.
'j ~
~ ,
;;,
4'
~'DI./iIG
" ~
.,.1
"
I
/
f~, l
4. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the transfer of additional access rights from
Olympic Boulevard
5. Take no action to amend the Circulation Element.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINDING
The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land
uses and programs specified in the General Plan.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer
Beth Rolandson, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A. July 14, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Reports & Minutes
B. July 21,2004 Planning Commission Staff Reports
C. Notice of Public Hearing & Radius and Location Map
D. Proposed Development Agreement - Lantana East NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
E. Proposed Development Agreement - Lantana South NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
F. Resolution Certifying the SEIR 5J=.--A/)oP'TI;'O Re.s~i'I'''''
G. Resolution Adopting a Statement of Overriding ConSideration~~j:~ fkstf1l9r./J/}!::
H. Ordinance Adopting the Lantana East Development Agreement 'P / /(rcs
I. Ordinance Adopting the Lantana South Development Agreement ./
J. Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Access Rights Across Two Street R19ht-of-
Way Parcels along Olympic Boulevard SE;b {:IDtJPraJ I{eao.ft. QQ7a,z,1.. S)
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
Copy of Certified Environmental Impact Report . NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
Meeting Notes from the Neighborhood Traffic Protection Plan Meetings
Correspondence
Project Photosimulation, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations & Landscape Plans-
Lantana East
P. Project Photosimulation, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations & Landscape Plans-
Lantana South
"'".."",
NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
34